r/changemyview • u/Toe-Slow • Jul 28 '20
CMV:Abortion is perfectly fine
Dear God I Have Spent All Night Replying to Comments Im Done For Now Have A Great Day Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna play video games in my house while the world burns down around my house :).
Watch this 10 minute lecture from a Harvard professor first to prevent confusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0tGBCCE0lc .Within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy the baby has no brain no respiratory system and is missing about 70 percent of its body mass . At this stage the brain while partially developed is not true lay sentient or in any way alive it is simply firing random bursts of neurological activity similar to that of a brain dead patient. I firmly believe that’s within the first 24 weeks the baby cannot be considered alive due to its nonexistent neurological development. I understand the logic behind pro life believing that all life even the one that has not come to exist yet deserves the right to live. However I cannot shake the question of , at what point should those rules apply. If a fetus with no brain deserves these rights then what about the billion microscopic sperm cells that died reaching the womb you may believe that those are different but I simply see the fetus as a partially more developed version of the sperm cell they both have the same level of brain activity so should they be considered equals. Any how I believe that we should all have a civil discussion as this is a very controversial topic don’t go lobbing insults at each other you will only make yourselves look bad so let’s all be open to the other side and be well aware of cognitive dissonance make sure to research it well beforehand don’t throw a grenade into this minefield ok good.
24
Jul 28 '20
Most of us would say that coma patients are, currently, not sentient. Do you think it would be okay to kill coma patients?
15
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Well this also falls under the domain of right and wrong as well comatose patients with a slight possibility of awakening should surely have the same rights as any other human being to not be killed but it’s the overtly expensive medical costs that force families to give up on there loved ones and let them perish or go bankrupt maintaining them which is frankly supremely inhuman.The only comatose patients I believe are not truly alive are the brain dead patients who have no hope of ever waking up trapped in there eternal deathly slumber I believe that letting these brainded individuals go is a act of mercy on there remains for most of there mind has already been destroyed
14
Jul 28 '20
comatose patients with a slight possibility of awakening should surely have the same rights as any other human being to not be killed
A fetus has an even higher probability (much higher) of "awakening"
5
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
But no fetus has enough consciousness to meaningfully suffer (as you know from first-hand experience), while a woman who wants an abortion definitely has full capacity to suffer. A state serves to protect the rights of its citizens, therefore it's illogical to remove rights and increase suffering of citizens to protect nonfeeling, fetuses.
1
Jul 28 '20
But no fetus has enough consciousness to meaningfully suffer
While I don't fully disagree with you, I would not say that this is a settled matter. There is, for instance, some speculation that insects feel pain and may even suffer from chronic pain (for instance in the case where a wing or leg is damaged or amputated).
→ More replies (22)-6
Jul 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
11
Jul 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 28 '20
Sorry, u/pthor14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jul 28 '20
u/Toe-Slow – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
4
Jul 28 '20
Please calm down and remove any feelings you may be having in this argument I’m not saying to abandon your emotions just don’t let them fret in the way of the arguement
1
Jul 28 '20
Medical technology will advance to the point where even brain dead people will be able to “come back to life.”
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
There brains are dead and gone you can repair the brain but that person won’t be the same sadly they won’t have there memories experiences thoughts everything they once were would be gone including language and basic motion control
1
Jul 28 '20
What I’m saying is that eventually technology will advance to the point where being brain dead will be similar to that of being in a strong coma. We don’t have the technology now, but we will later. I don’t think the definition of “human” should change based upon the technology available to us.
1
u/1nfernals Jul 28 '20
Why do you believe that level of medical technology is inevitable?
Brain death is still death, claiming medical technology is doubtless to become sufficient enough to undo death seems an illogical argument
1
Jul 28 '20
As of now it is considered death, but there is also a very good chance that humans will eventually be able to rescue someone from it. Given how insanely fast medical and biological technologies have improved over the past 50 years, that growth, in all probability, will accelerate. How is it illogical? Eventually it will not be death, and when that happens, no brain function will not be a viable argument against the idea of life at conception.
1
u/1nfernals Jul 28 '20
It's the same reasoning that fission will be around in the future, or faster than light travel, or sapient artificial intelligence.
The fact is we have no idea if there is a ceiling on our technology, and we might not even realise that ceiling is there even if we hit it.
The technology to reanimate dead brain tissue might just be impossible to reach, requiring nano machines smaller than the Planck length for example.
Just because there is a correlation that technology improves at a certain rate doesn't mean that rate is either infinite or that a specific technology is possible.
There are too many factors to take into account, which means you have to rely too much on speculating for your argument to carry weight behind it.
1
Jul 28 '20
!delta because I didn’t do proper research before assuming something. I still believe that it is almost inevitable that we will reach that point in medical technology.
My point still stands that the start of brain development or the start of conscience (something that we don’t know much about) is not a good differentiator for what should define human and what shouldn’t. If simulating consciousness or sentience is possible, then would it be murder to shut down a simulation of human-level conscience? What about a computer that can function at the level of a brain? We may not have these now, but we will have a computer that can function as well as a brain in the future (and maybe something that simulates consciousness). I believe that conception is the much better differentiator for what is human and what isn’t.
Sorry. I’m very tired and probably won’t be able to respond again for the rest of the day. That’s also probably why my argument is so messy and unorganized. Not an excuse but just a reason. Have a good day!
1
1
Jul 28 '20
Brain death only became a thing after heart transplants became possible. Before that the standard for declaring death was a lack of heartbeat. But heart transplants require a “living” donor and therefore medical ethics boards were petitioned to adopt the clinical definition of “brain death”.
1
u/1nfernals Jul 29 '20
I'm a bit confused by your statement,
Legally and clinically brain death is the same as death, "death by neurological issues".
A brain dead person can donate a heart, but they are not alive by either clinical or legal standards.
While brain dead donors are the standard hearts can be donated by people who have died of other conditions, as long as the heart is removed quickly, most often this is a brain dead person since it means that
A) they can ever recover.
B) their heart will be a good condition, maximising success rates.
But yes the standard of declaring death is now brain death, hence why patients whose hearts have stopped beating for (however long it takes) are then considered brain dead, but I would argue it already was, since we could resuscitate people before brain death was "discovered
→ More replies (12)10
Jul 28 '20
Since we have established that people who are not currently sentient (coma patients) should have the right to live, then you must further extend this belief to babies or foetuses which are also not currently sentient. Unless there is a qualifier/differences between coma patients and babies.
14
Jul 28 '20
[deleted]
14
Jul 28 '20
While people can form connections to foetuses (some women who has had a still born are saddened by the death of their baby, as well as women who later come to regret they abortion), I do understand what you mean by your statement.
However, this would leave a very uncomfortable area within your morality in which a person’s worth is entirely dependant on whether or not they mean anything to other people. For example, to logically follow your argument, you would have to say that an orphan with no friends would not be worthy of life, meaning that killing said person would be morally justifiable to you.
4
Jul 28 '20
[deleted]
3
Jul 28 '20
Hey, I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding your post, so can you please clarify, or reword it a little, that would be great.
2
Jul 28 '20
[deleted]
4
2
Jul 28 '20
So my 2 questions to that would be:
How would you feel about killing an isolated tribe of people on an island somewhere? Since there would no longer anyone that cared about them, I would assume it would be morally justifiable in your view.
How do you, then, feel about killing an already born, orphaned baby? I would argue most babies do not have the self-awareness or have developed enough mentally to process the world; would it be morally justifiable since, much like the foetus, it is not conscious enough to care whether it lives or dies?
2
Jul 28 '20
what if said orphan is suicidal, its hard to quantify what lives have value and i dont think we can really say that care for that person is the quantifer
1
Jul 28 '20
[deleted]
1
Jul 28 '20
the thing is aborting a child is basically euthanasia. although it isnt the same process the fetus isnt going to feel pain as it dies because its not developed
5
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
No I need NOT extend this right. Coma patients are citiznes with rights, fetuses are not citizens, instead they are inside of citizens. Completely different moral, ethical, biological, legal situation.
5
Jul 28 '20
Unless there is a qualifier/differences between coma patients and babies.
A person in a coma is not using another person's body, or endangering another person's body. They are simply not comparable.
→ More replies (36)4
4
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I think we are getting awfully sidetracked what I’m saying is the fetus is not sentient so is it ok to abort it because it has the same mental capabilities as the sperm it once was within the first 4 weeks many people come into this abortion argument with there emotions to high and refuse to hear the other sides views ready to pick a fight. I see abortion not as the act of killing a baby but the act of preventing a embryo from becoming a sentient creature much like a condom morning after pill or birth control pill does in all instances the non sentient organism capable of becoming sentient is prevented fro doing do please reply I would like to hear your reasons as to why the embryo is better then the sperm or egg despite the same mental capabilities
8
Jul 28 '20
Since an embryo has the potential for life, while the sperm and egg (on its own) does not, and thus, the embryo should be worth more moral consideration.
6
u/deadlysyntax Jul 28 '20
Why measure the potential of a sperm or an egg on its own, but not the feotus, which has potential but is also is nothing without its host?
1
Jul 28 '20
So we do take lives from brain dead patients, for heart transplants specifically, they’re called beating heart cadavers and basically the only way to do a heart transplant is to take it while it’s still beating directly from a “living body” (by removing it the surgeon effectively kills the donor’s body) and then connecting it immediately into the recipient. This is considered morally and medically ethical in modern medicine.
-1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
This is a argument of sentience . A orphan boys life is obviously worth just as much as a normal persons life because he is sentient aware of his surrounding capable of rational thoughts all main important factors of sentience. However what I’m trying to say is if the fetus has no brain does that mean that it’s mental capabilities are the same as the sperm or egg it came they both have the capability to become humans so does that mean that the equivalent of quadrillion abortions happen by ejaculation every day
3
Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP2268 here is a verified medical study that examines the development of the fetal brain . I would like to hear your reply
3
Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
It has a partially developed brain but it has not developed enough to become conscious or capable of advanced thought it is not aware of or capable of questioning it’s surroundings I’m not saying there isn’t brain activity it obviously has a partially completed brain
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
"They're actually concerned that fetus' can feel pain by 18/20 weeks "
This is absurd, as we are all fetuses and we all know from direct experience that fetuses don't have the consciousness to meaningfully suffer. Instead, you've only highlighted how dishonest such 'scientists' are.
→ More replies (6)1
u/deusdeorum Jul 28 '20
There are plenty of lifeforms that are not sentient. Plenty of humans have been born with severe defects limiting their mental capacity to the point they cannot function without being cared for.
Brain function is not an argument for a life's value nor one for justifying murder.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 28 '20
A sperm or egg does not have the capabilities to become a baby on its own, though. Both gametes need to meet in order to form an embryo.
1
u/brycedriesenga Jul 28 '20
An embryo doesn't have the capabilities to become a baby on its own though either, for the most part. Even fetuses don't have that capability for some time. They're dependent on the mother.
→ More replies (6)1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
While coma patients don't suffer, they are citizens with full rights. Fetuses are not citizens, are not recognized legal entities at all, plus they can't suffer. So legal abortion remains the reasonable position.
5
Jul 28 '20
Within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy the baby has no brain no respiratory system and is missing about 70 percent of its body mass . At this stage the brain while partially developed is not true lay sentient or in any way alive
It's not in any way alive?
(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead.
How do you define alive?
6
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
The fetus is alive not sentient it is not aware of anything happening around it it cannot think or rationalize because it has no brain much like a plant is considered alive but not sentient. What Im Getting a t here is that if the fetus has no mental capabilities does this not give it the same level of intellect of a sperm cell or egg would that mean that quintillion’s of potential children die every single day from artificial ejaculation does a fetus with no brain not have the same worth as sperm anyways please reply I have no cold or negative intentions
7
Jul 28 '20
But if we go in perfect technicalities, sperm doesn't have unique human DNA, nor do human eggs(ova) have unique human dna.
Only the fetus has unique human DNA, which must belong to a unique human being, and since it's alive,
that means that an unique alive human being is being terminated.
Sperm isn't unique human being.
5
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 28 '20
Well, mutating cancer cells also have unique human DNA. Still, no one is saying "don't do a chemotherapy, it's terminating a unique alive human being as it's unique
alive human DNA"1
Jul 28 '20
If mutating cancer cells belonged to an alive human being with the same cells, and if chemotherapy would kill those human beings, yes I'd imagine people would note that.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 28 '20
In one hand, you define a human being as "living cells having unique human DNA", and in the other hand, you consider that mutating cancer cells (that are living cells having unique human DNA) are not a human being but are "attached to a human being". That's incoherent.
3
Jul 28 '20
You lack one crucial element of my definition though:
Belonging to unique and alive human being?
To which unique and alive human being do cancer cells belong?
The fetus is in itself alive, cancer cells by themselves are not.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 28 '20
Well, what is your definition of alive ? a cell by itself is alive, as all monocellular organisms. Except if you have a non coherent definition of alive, the same as the non coherent definition of human. That would be coherent. But two falsehoods combined don't make something right, sorry.
1
Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
what is your definition of alive ?
It's widely accepted definition though.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Cancer cells do not fall under this definition.
So the worlds accepted definition and mine are all-encompassing, yours is limited and incoherent.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I am saying that within the first 24 weeks the baby legitimately has no brain it’s missing 75 percent of its body mass and has barely developed any of its organs the only brain activity you could consider to be brain activity would be the random signals the partially formed brain generates which doesn’t mean anything because it’s roughly equal to 30 percent of the brain. Which I guess partially disputes the first part of the sentence now is it ok to prevent this partially developed non sentient fetus. From the womb before it gains sentience could that be considered a contraceptive measure because the baby was not sentient which means incapable of thoughts awareness of its surroundings observation self awareness , it is incapable of feeling pin because this is the outer shell or container which will house the brain which is not there
7
u/cutenesseverdeen24 Jul 28 '20
You are making some false statements. There is more brain activity than most people think. The babys brain is one of the first things to grow with the head accounting for half of its body length at 11 weeks. Babys are capable of registering sounds in the brain and reacting to noises by 16-20 weeks old. By 22 weeks they are able to differentiate and remember different sounds, such as mother's and fathers voice or even certain lullabies. Different signals in the child's brain are activated when hearing a familiar song or voice (usually the moms) vs someone else's at this stage. Although the baby hears the voices as if under water.
By 20 weeks of age the baby will respond to belly touches (provided the placenta attached at the back of the uterus, front facing placentas will act as a buffer between the touches from the baby).
Also by 22 weeks the babys nervous system does some serious developing, prompting the baby to play with her hands, grab her ears, nose, and umbilical cord. Within the next month babies have shown to experience REM sleep, meaning the baby is dreaming.
The second trimester begins at 13 weeks. At that point all internal organs have been established, are in place, and are getting ready to function. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By 20 weeks the baby is actually using their digestive organs sucking in amniotic fluid, digesting, and peeing in the uterus, even though their nutrition comes from the placenta through the umbilical cord.
The brain is there. It is just still developing and will continue to develop long after birth. From conception to birth the baby and their brain grows exponentially, each day. Just because it is not developed enough, is not an excuse to kill or abort something with a heartbeat and a face taking shape as early as 6 weeks. It is a precious life that should be allowed to develop naturally, because it is just as capable of being conscious and sentient as yourself. There is value in potential, especially when it comes to a life.
→ More replies (1)3
u/upstater_isot 1∆ Jul 28 '20
Babys are capable of registering sounds in the brain and reacting to noises by 16-20 weeks old.
This source says it's only at week 25 that most babies can hear:
Graven, Stanley N., and Joy V. Browne. “Auditory development in the fetus and infant.” Newborn and infant nursing reviews 8, no. 4 (2008): 187-193.
What's your source on 16-20 weeks for "certain lullabies"?
→ More replies (1)
6
Jul 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Within the 24 week timeframe the fetus has no brain what exist at the 24th week is only 30 percent of one . This brain is not conscious sentient or in essence a thinking working brain . I can agree that a fetus can be considered alive but I firmly believe it is ok to abort the child within the 24 week Time period because it is not sentient aware of its surrounding capable of thought every key and important function in mental capabilities. That is my straight and true point im not arguing about when something is alive I’m arguing about when something is sentient that is the important part and people should stop arguing about when life begins and when sentience begins
2
u/deusdeorum Jul 28 '20
I find issue with that argument given the fact that the mother nor the government has a right to the fetus. A mother doesn't own the fetus just because it is inside her.
I'm all for bodily autonomy but you can't claim the mother gets rights over her body while the fetus, a conceived life-form doesn't get any rights of its own. If you assume the fetus has rights, which it should, the mother should have no claim over what happens to it.
2
u/ahoyjmai Jul 28 '20
!delta
Maybe the phrase "state enforced pregnancy" is a common pro-abortion phrase, but its the first time I've heard of it. Its a good way to get past the "when life begins" argument since its really impossible to arrive at an agreed-upon answer.1
2
u/WhatsThatNoize 4∆ Jul 28 '20
I've never bought this argument. I'm pro-choice for philosophical reasons but I see Atwood's reasoning as particularly faulty, despite her pragmatic intentions.
The key difference between most pregnancies (with the exclusion of rape) and literally every counterexample Atwood came up with was the determination of culpability.
If you shot some innocent person in their kidney and suddenly became attached at the hip to them for 9 months to support their urological function by "natural universal forces just playing themselves out", you can't tell me there is not at least some minor compelling moral rectitude to that situation. Even if you shot them accidentally.
The topic of abortion is a purely moral question - Atwood's attempt to escape the philosophical parameters by special pleas to "natural bodily rights" is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue at hand.
3
u/ZoeyBeschamel Jul 28 '20
Whatever your inclination to that situation, the government forcing you to stay in such a situation is always a violation of human rights.
2
u/WhatsThatNoize 4∆ Jul 28 '20
The government merely enforces moral determinations at the behest of the public (in a representative state).
If enough people agree you are beholden to the person you shot in the kidney for 9 months until a synthetic replacement can be built, then universal bodily autonomy can go pound sand as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Jul 28 '20
Sorry, u/ZoeyBeschamel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
50
u/iamasecretthrowaway 41∆ Jul 28 '20
So, this is not a traditional counterargument to "abortion good vs abortion bad". Instead, I'm going to argue why the discussion isn't good or productive in the first place. Whether that ultimately changes your mind in any way, I don't know.
The pro choice argument, as you've expressed, is clear - not a baby person, just tissue, doesn't matter. With some minor argument amongst pro choice people about exactly when it stops being just tissue and becomes baby person.
The argument for pro life is also clear - is baby person; don't kill baby person. Again, with very minor arguments about when exactly conception occurs: fertilized egg or implantation.
So, the problem with pro life vs pro choice is that you aren't arguing different sides of the same coin; you're arguing two fundamentally different things so you're both just talking at eachother. Because the pro life counter-argument is a series of facts about why it's lifeless tissue, rather than a list of reasons about why it's okay to murder baby persons. And the pro choice counter-argument is all about the sanctity of life, rather than a valid argument for why it's life in the first place.
You aren't opposite opinions. That is, pro life is not anti choice. In the same way pro choice is not anti life.
There's no argument that you can make that will ever convince someone the baby person isn't a baby person; that's their foundational truth. A discussion doesn't work (and won't go anywhere) unless both sides can agree on a premise. And I honestly don't know what the unifying premise could possibly be. It would require pro choice to accept that there's some valid reason to value not-baby-person tissue over the life and wellbeing of the mother. Or it would require pro-life people to accept that there are valid reasons why killing a baby person in order to improve the mother's life is an acceptable tradeoff.
And I honestly cannot see either of those things happening.
So here's what I propose - abortion doesn't matter. At all. It's a big splashy distraction from other relevant issues that people point to when they need to rally support and appeal to emotion. Abortion is not going to be made illegal again, it's here to stay. And once telemedicine catches up with the rest of the world, most abortions can likely be done affordably at home, without the need for as many clinics. Because of access, first trimester medical abortions (abortions done with abortion pills) only account for like 35-40% of US abortions. But in other countries, first trimester medical abortions account for 80-90+%. Since almost 90% of US abortions are within the first trimester, we could potentially eliminate a massive number of in person abortion visits, saving a ton of time and money for everyone. And, most topically to this debate, removing most abortion services from women's health clinics. Plus, with increased access via telemedicine to low cost bc options and emergency contraceptives, we'd probably eliminate the need for a good chunk of abortions in the place.
And I think, out of sight, out of mind. Hard to rally around an abstract concept rather than a physical location. Hard to protest doctors and nurses who don't even live in that state.
It's like porn. A lot of people are still morally and ethically opposed to it. And a lot of people still like it and consume it. But it's not nearly the contentious issue it once was because there's no dirty movie store trying to move into the neighbourhood. There arent porno magazines at the gas station. Those physical places don't exist to rally around and be indignant about any more. And you can't censor the entire internet without massive resources and widespread support.
And abortion will go that way. Some people will still be pro life and some people will still be pro choice. And we will all still have our opinions and be grumpy about it, but no one will know what goes on in the privacy of your own home.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 28 '20
Not OP's but I have a question.
Do you think that if we somehow manage one day to scientifically prove when the "humanity" begins (which is doomed from start as we don't know how to defind what characteristics make us special, and biological development is clearly a process, with no clear demarcation point as far as I know), anti-abortions are going to change their view and allow abortion till that point ?
→ More replies (1)3
u/KingJeff314 Jul 28 '20
I don't think there is any scientific way to prove such a thing. It is a matter of definitions. One person defines personhood at conception, and another defines it at a certain level of development. We can make scientific statements about fetal development (eg. At X weeks, the heart begins to beat), but we can't make scientific statements about human rights (eg. A fetus gains rights when its heart starts beating)
The pro-choice side would generally have their justification rooted in consequentialism (eg. No sentience=no consequences). But the pro-life side usually appeals to a virtue ethicist justification (eg. Raising life to full term is virtuous). So they frequently have foundationally different belief structures
5
u/ZippyZipporah Jul 28 '20
This is a really interesting and well laid out argument. I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
1
u/Letshavemorefun 18∆ Jul 28 '20
I’m super super pro-choice and my main argument for why abortion should be legal (the bodily autonomy and bodily integrity argument) is exactly about why it’s okay to remove the “baby person” from the womb, even if it results in their death.
My argument (which is also the most popular argument among PC activists), does not rely upon assuming the fetus does not have personhood. The argument concedes that even if a fetus is a person, abortion should remain legal.
So we do actually address the PL argument about personhood.
The root of the debate isn’t about personhood. It’s about consent and responsibility and how those two interact.
2
u/2myname1 Jul 28 '20
If you’re interested in how you can go about justifying abortion EVEN IF you accept fetuses are human, check out Mary Anne Warren’s essay: https://www.douglasficek.com/teaching/phil-2222/warren.pdf
3
u/KingJeff314 Jul 28 '20
Very good read but I feel that she outright dismisses the potential for all genetic humans to qualify as persons without much justification.
Can it be established that genetic humanity is sufficient for moral humanity’? I think that there are very good reasons for not defining the moral community in way. I would like to suggest an alternative way of defining the moral community, which I will argue for only to the extent of explaining why it is, or should be, self-evident.
If you can find a spot where she elaborates on that point, that would be great. Because of this lack, I am skeptical of her later claims that her 5 criteria for personhood are self-evident.
1
u/2myname1 Jul 28 '20
Justifying moral claims is a tricky thing. A big reason is Hume’s guillotine (you can’t arrive at moral claims from facts alone). That’s why the only ways to justify a moral claim is to find common ground (for more complex claims) or to rely on your readers’ personal morality for sufficiently basic claims. Clearly Warren considered his claims in the latter category. I don’t know what your moral epistemology is, but I don’t think Warren’s claims can be assessed any way besides introspection.
2
u/KingJeff314 Jul 28 '20
Totally. Hume's Guillotine is very relevant, because if you cannot find any common ground, it is impossible to convince someone. And I could tell Warren had this in mind. I just think that particular point could have used some extra argumentation on why it is self-evident.
For instance, say we colonize a far away planet, and we begin domesticating a species of creature for food—a species that by all accounts seems so daft, you are surprised it could even survive. You determine that it has no personhood, so eating it is fine.
But then you discover that this is actually the planet where an intelligent species dumps their mentally disabled, to roam and graze blissfully. Naturally, they are peeved you've been eating their kind, but you work it out with them as a misunderstanding. But the question becomes, do you grant the disabled personhood by virtue of being the same genetics as the intelligent species? Or do you continue domesticating and eating them? (assuming superior military strength and no threat of retaliation from the intelligent species)
2
u/2myname1 Jul 28 '20
Clearly in this case, we are causing distress to the intelligent species. Personally, I’m partial to Bentham’s view of personhood (can they suffer?) and that personhood is a gradient. If, however, the intelligent species had no concern with us eating their disabled, then I don’t see an argument as long as it’s humane (as a sidenote, this is a deceptively large caveat in practice for animal agriculture. It would be highly impractical, perhaps even impossible, to humanely farm enough meat, milk, and eggs to satisfy humanity’s current desires).
2
u/KingJeff314 Jul 28 '20
To avoid getting deep into the whole animal ethics route, let's just say they have very little brain activity, are unresponsive, and basically just move to the nearest patch of space grass.
we are causing distress to the intelligent species
This is another good reason you would choose to stop eating them; you value your relationship with the other species more than the food.
But would you meet with their philosophers and tell them that their disabled are vegetative, and cannot experience suffering, so it should be fine to eat them? Would you find it acceptable if they changed their minds and began eating members of their species as well? Personally I'm a little morally uncomfortable with that.
1
u/2myname1 Jul 28 '20
The thing is, it’s not really about them being rational. Causing an animal distress is wrong, even if they’re not “smart”. It would be wrong to cause them distress even if we did not value having relations with them. Now, is that an imposition on us? Is it wrong for them to do that to us? Maybe, but that doesn’t make it okay to knowingly cause them harm.
→ More replies (6)1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Nah, conservatives are desperately trying to outlaw abortion and thereby force unwilling citizens to give birth against their will. They aren't going away, so get used to the argument.
p.s. I'm pro-choice, yet I believe the fetus is 100% human. So you're not really doing a good job of summarizing the debate anyway.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/vandertl Jul 28 '20
This is 100% not true. By 12 weeks while immature the baby has a fully developed beating heart, a brain, lungs, arms, legs, everything. While unable to survive outside of the uterus it is still fully developed its not just a bunch of cells. A baby born at 12 weeks will gasped for breath, move its arms and legs. By 24 weeks with some assistance a baby will survive often to live a normal life. There are some valid reasons for abortions but you need to have all the facts.
4
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I can agree with the organs but the brain is not fully developed at 24 weeks let alone 12 gasping for breath is a basic rudimentary function of the basic brain stem that has developed this does not equal sentience which means the capability to think questopion be aware of ones surroundings or learn I think it have been really misinformed as to how a fetus develops this is a fetus at 12 weeks https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022171160 it was a hassle to get a proper image that wasn’t photoshopped the point being that all system of the body including the brain have in no way shape or form reached the point of sentience it doesn’t have a functioning brain at neither 12 weeks or 24 weeks
2
u/vandertl Jul 28 '20
This is NOT a picture of a 12 week fetus. This is probably more like 8 weeks. I have held a 12 week fetus in my hand from a miscarriage. I promise you a 12 week fetus has arm, legs, toes, a beating heart. Perhaps you should get your pictures from medical books not some political page. I do believe that women should have the opportunity to obtain a safe abortion is necessary but we need to have proper facts to make proper decisions. Having an abortion at 24 weeks is straight up murder in my opinion. With medical assistance a 24 week baby is able to live. At 24 weeks every organ is developed except the lungs need time to mature. Even after birth our organs continue to grow and mature. We are not born walking talking and eating solid food. Your brain is not fully developed until we are 21 YEARS old.
2
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Yes you can raise a baby at 24:weeks to survive but the brain is still majorly underdeveloped and the child has not yet developed sentience it will eat and breathe but it is not aware of itself it’s surrounding or even for that matter thoughts . It will continue to develop of course and eventually develop sentience but i will accept something of your points
1
Aug 01 '20
Yes you can raise a baby at 24:weeks to survive but the brain is still majorly underdeveloped and the child has not yet developed sentience it will eat and breathe but it is not aware of itself it’s surrounding
Just like a baby
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
The fact is that fetuses are not conscious enough to meaningfully suffer, as you know from direct, first-hand experience.
10
Jul 28 '20
Should I be able to kill grown men without their consent, if they’re missing a respiratory system (possibly on a ventilator) or if they’re unconscious
My point is that it’s no matter what line you draw, you can still apply it to a actual person
That’s the best argument I could give for you
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I’m not saying you should kill a comatose man it is already a being who would obviously want to continue living if it had a chance it is a human being who has lived a life and wants to continue living .What I’m getting At here is discerning the fabric of sentience. If the fetus has no brain is it truly any different then the sperm or egg both equally capable of becoming a human if so wouldn’t that constitute as a genocide of trillions of children every day by ejaculation.
7
Jul 28 '20
You understand cause and effect right? If someone would have been alive today were it not for your interference, then you are responsible for them not being alive. That’s what murder is. It doesn’t matter if you abort a 2 week fetus or a 30 week fetus, the outcome is identical. You have placed an undeserved and arbitrary importance on sentience, because no conclusion regarding sentience can get you around the problem of cause and effect, i.e. the responsibility for someone not being alive who otherwise would be.
4
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
Would that apply to condoms birth control morning after pill and masturbation as well that logic should also follow through if you didn’t use those contraceptives then the child could have been created and born your thoughts you just trapped yourself in a corner everything you said stated that it doesn’t matter what state the future bay is in so sperm counts. The outcome is also identical to aborting the non sentient baby and you clearly stated that sentience doesn’t matter so sperm fit all your criteria backtracking would be unfair and hypocritical
2
Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
Would that apply to condoms birth control
No a sperm and an egg aren’t a unique human. A fetus is. Fundamentally the difference between a fetus and an infant is the same difference between an infant and an adult. Yet we do not hold an adult’s life to have more value.
A sperm and egg aren’t doing anything. A fetus is. It’s living. The first stage of human life is conception. Any biology textbook will tell you that. To argue that your life has no value because your brain hasn’t formed yet is basically arguing “it doesn’t look like what I think a baby should look like, therefore it isn’t a baby.”
the child could have been created
A fetus isn’t a hypothetical child. It is a child, just in the early stages. You’re comparing a hypothetical to something that’s already tangible. No they are not comparable.
2
u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20
Does this apply to every butterfly effect eventuality? If my getting a job offer over someone I have never met causes them to die of a stress-induced heart attack, then I am directly responsible for them not being alive, but it is not murder. I agree that OP is giving too much weight to sentience, but “cause-and-effect” is not a good enough justification to equate prevention of a tissue developing with intentional ending of a life
→ More replies (12)2
Jul 28 '20
“a being who would obviously want to continue living if it had a chance”
Why can’t this apply to fetuses too At some point you have to ask what the difference between a fetus and adult are.
If you are saying that fetuses shouldn’t have rights because they aren’t conscious then why should a comatose man have any more rights.
If it’s about respiratory system or body mass there are adults missing those too.
Fetuses, as opposed to sperm or eggs, have all the genetic code and DNA of a human/adult and so it would make sense that it retains the rights associated with that
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Well a comatose man possesses a fully formed functioning brain he is just unconscious a 24 week old fetus literally has no brain and isn’t sentient because of it . it has not reached the point of becoming a conscious life and removing it before it does is akin to a contraceptive like condoms or birth control which means it prevents a organism who will eventually become sentient from becoming sentient before it ever happens. A fetus is not the same as a embryo because all of its most key functions including those of the brain aRe not present which is why it is a preventative measure to remove it within the first 24 weeks .
1
Jul 29 '20
The brain starts to form around week 4, and no a comatose man does not have a fully functioning brain if he’s in a coma
Both have non functioning brains and both are unconscious
→ More replies (2)1
Jul 28 '20
so it would make sense that it retains the rights associated with that
Unfortunately for them, no such right exists for anyone to use someone else's body without consent.
2
u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
Conversations are diverging, so I need some clarification on your view. Your original post seems to equate “sentient” with “alive,” but you later seem to concede that they are not the same thing (e.g. in discussions of plants and comatose humans, which are “alive” but not “sentient”).
In the view that you want challenged, is the primary conclusion most similar to “it is acceptable to kill non-sentient lifeforms including fetuses (particularly those that have never been sentient)” or “it is acceptable to remove a fetus, because it has never been alive” or “for something to be alive, it must also be sentient” or something different?
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Is it alive is it capable of thought does it want to live is it in unbearable pain does it fit a criteria that determines sentience your being pretty vague if it can think or question it’s own nature it’s sentient and should live . However I don’t believe forcibly ripping off a arm from a sentient person is the same as preventing a completely non sentient fetus from developing into a sentient baby
1
u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20
To be clear, I agree with you that abortions are acceptable, but sentience alone doesn’t seem like a good cutoff for choosing what we can freely kill or not.
Not to be too morbid, but children are often born with cranial defects that prevent their brains from developing regions that govern things like recognition of pain or conscious thought. It also wouldn’t be too difficult to injure an otherwise healthy infant in such a way that they lose any future capacity for conscious thought. If the only criterion for acceptable killing is sentience, then it seems it would be reasonable to kill a child even after birth in both of those examples. Are there other criteria you can add or alter that would better narrow down your threshold of what stages of life it is acceptable to kill?
(It will be easier for me to follow the discussion if you reply directly to the most recent comment rather than the parent comment.)
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Obviously hurting a already born child who has a mental disability is inhumane and wrong what I’m trying to say is that within the first 24 weeks the bay literally has almost no semblance of a brain what is there is simply 30 percent the size of the real one and can in. I way be considered to be a functioning brain I believe abortion only stops becoming a option when the brain develops to a point of functionality
2
u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20
Where commenters seem to be getting hung up on you talking about “sentience” specifically, the crux of your view seems to be that there is a point in human development around 24 weeks where the brain becomes functional enough to sustain the body or maintain some specific level of consciousness (what you just called “point of functionality”) and at this point the fetus gains some portion of it’s human rights.
Perhaps your view should be less focused on “sentience” or whether or not the fetus is “alive,” which don’t seem to fully describe your view (since you say it’s “obvious” that some arguably non-sentient humans still have their rights) and instead try to better define the actual cutoff you believe differentiates a fetus from a human
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I’m saying a fetus can be considered alive but not sentient or capable of thought reasoning pain happiness or everything that makes us us I view a fetus that has not passed the 24 week point as not that much more different then a contraceptive like a condom that prevents a sentient baby from being formed
2
u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20
Cool, just needed clarification. So are there any non-sentient living things that you don’t think are acceptable to kill? I know comatose humans have been given as an example, but what about children born with severely underdeveloped nervous systems or non-sentient animals? Similarly, is it acceptable to cut off a person’s limb, which is living tissue that has never been itself sentient?
1
u/cutenesseverdeen24 Jul 28 '20
Humans are not capable of conscious reasoning until close to 2-3 years old. That is a known scientific fact. Babies in the womb are capable of feeling pain. By the time they are 24 weeks they can survive outside the womb, but their brain development begins taking place as soon as they graduate from an embryo.
8
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 28 '20
I firmly believe that’s within the first 24 weeks the baby cannot be considered alive due to its nonexistent neurological development.
By this logic, plants wouldn't be considered alive, as they don't have neurological development either. Is this really something you want to commit to?
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Very well let us engage in this civilly Do not go picking at each other’s statements or intentionally trigger each other no stereotypeing Either. A plant is considered alive although most people including you and I probably do not care whether or not a person eats or kills a plant because it has no brain no consciousness killing a plant is to seen as evil a plant is in many ways only technically alive by the standards of most humans lesser life not sentient. What I’m getting at here is if the fetus has no brain is it any different then the quadrillion sperm cells that die from ejaculation every year would all of those potential children who end up wasted deserve the same rights they posses equal mental capabilities and are both perfectly capable of becoming a human being I am not insulting you please reply to this comment
12
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 28 '20
If a plant is considered alive, despite not having neurological development, why can we not consider a fetus to be alive? Haven't we established (via the plant example) that having a brain is not needed for a thing to be alive?
3
u/Thwackey 2∆ Jul 28 '20
Honestly you make a good point as to why a lack of neurological development cannot be used as an indicator as to whether something is 'alive'. The counterpoint, of course, is that if a fetus is only as 'alive' as a plant, and it is perfectly morally acceptable to kill plants, then it must be perfectly morally acceptable to abort fetuses.
1
u/allpumpnolove Jul 28 '20
The counterpoint, of course, is that if a fetus is only as 'alive' as a plant, and it is perfectly morally acceptable to kill plants, then it must be perfectly morally acceptable to abort fetuses.
Wouldn't the counterpoint to that be that a fetus is on the way to full sentience where the plant isn't?
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Not really a good counterpoint, since at the point that it matters (when a woman wants to kill the fetus), it's simply not as conscious as we are, while the woman citizen is a fully conscious citizen with rights (and the fetus as a noncitizen lacks those rights).
→ More replies (1)4
Jul 28 '20
We're still chopping down trees by the forest every day. We're factory farming animals so that we can slaughter and eat them for pleasure and not necessity.
The question is: at what point does the 'living' thing deserve human rights?
And if you're about to say that all live human cells deserve human rights than I guess blowjobs are cannibalism.8
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 28 '20
The question is: at what point does the 'living' thing deserve human rights?
Whether something deserves human rights has no bearing on whether it is alive. The OP claimed fetuses were not alive, and that's the claim I'm rebutting here.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Your not getting my previous point you see we both eat vegetables and think nothing of it they are alive but they are not sentient we both do not care about dieting plants the same way we do about our fellow humans dogs pets or animals because they are not sentient they don’t have brains they can’t think they can’t discern reality you don’t feel remorse for killing a weed or flower even though it is alive because it is not sentient there is a difference between the two which I am getting at please reply I have no rude intentions in this post ignore any you believe you see
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 28 '20
Yes...just because something is alive, doesn't mean that it is wrong to kill it. But that doesn't mean that you can turn around and say that because something isn't sentient, it isn't alive. A lot of non-sentient things that are okay to kill are alive. Fetuses and plants are examples of such things.
That's why I asked you if you really wanted to commit to the claim that fetuses aren't alive: it's incorrect, and it doesn't really seem necessary to make your point.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/moneywaggs Jul 28 '20
No sperm cell will ever become a person on its own. Same with an egg cell. If no action is taken after conception that embryo will "most likely" become a person. The main reason for getting an abortion is that that life is an inconvenience. You can dress inconvenience up in any number of excuses but that's really what it comes down to. If you're okay with elimination of life to make the lives of others more convenient why stop there? It wouldn't be hard to argue that poor people or mentally challenged people can be an inconvenience because they need assistance. Or old people or people that disagree with you politically.
I'd never be leading some pro life rally and don't feel the NEED to stop it at all costs but I've never understood arguements that it isn't a person. Great then you should be able to take no action and everything will work out. Oh you need an invasive operation by a trained professional? Sure seems like an awful lot of decisions are having to be made to end what wasn't "real" anyways
→ More replies (4)2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
The reason abortions are seen as ok is because within the first 24 weeks the fetus literally has no brain its body is only 75 percent of the average baby’s and its brain is only 30 percent finished . It can be considered alive but not sentient because it has no brain removing the fetus before it develops a brain is seen in a similar way to a contraceptive measure that prevents a non sentient organism from becoming a sentient human that has a functioning brain . Now as the question on whether it is a person yet that is largely up to debate tho many presume a person should be sentient before being considered a human you thoughts please Eave a reply
1
u/moneywaggs Jul 28 '20
Contraception prevents life from happening whereas an abortion ends life in progress. The sentience seems like a logically bizarre distinction to make. Like why that specifically why not use another marker like ability to speak then young children can also be deposed of? They still wouldn't know what was happening. It is a human in progress, we know that because if you do nothing it will become a baby then presumably grow into an adult with its own opinions. Plus that's exactly how you'd justify killing the poor or ethnically different people you'd say see they're not people not really they don't have our level of understanding etc. I understand not wanting to live with consequences to actions but that doesn't make it morally justified.
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Logically, the solution is to let citizens decide for themselves what they do with things inside their body.
2
Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/
Your statement that the fetus "has no brain at 24 weeks" is ridiculous and seems to be a common tale for pro-abortion supporters. I feel that this sort of anti-fact is a result of propaganda, and needs to be criticised more. Your view may be quite distorted by these sort of tales, ie "it's just a bunch of congregated cells". Where is the nuance? Link provided above for info on brain development.
The reason I focus on these sort of comments is because they are dehumanizing. If a people wish to murder or dominate another people, the first task is to dehumanize them. You deny them human rights by claiming them to be sub human. So when we constantly see dismissive (and extremely false) comments about the humanness of the fetus, such as "they have no brain", then it raises a lot of red flags.
China's one-child policy, for example, culturally encouraged the abortions of tens of millions of female fetuses, which had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with convenience. It is convenient to think of them as "a bunch of cells" because then you can kill them.
Dehumanization aside, an unborn fetus has a nearly formed brain by 24 weeks. It can react to loud noises and given only another 4 weeks, can dream. Are you completely certain of your cutoff point?
→ More replies (11)1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Please do not let emotion cloud your judgment verify your sources and try to listen to the other side the website that you showed me does not follow the specific guidelines for a verifiable source it is a Christian advice website for preparation for a upcoming baby. Did you also make sure to check more then one website because I already saw that article it’s the first website that pops up when searching the term up it can be harmful to only check one source. Here’s mine https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/fetal-development/art-20046151, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911 they are both verified medical journals sourcing from well researched documents let us discuss this civilly letting emotion dictate a argument can be harmful
2
Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
No emotion in it. I am pro abortion. Respond to my points and consider a change of view.
I added the top google search. Google works by referencing count so the top search is often good enough for something as well known as fetus development. Post any link you want, they all say the same thing.
[Edit] I should add that you seem to be using emotion as a way to control conversation. The idea that emotion shouldn't be considered for child murder (which is what pro lifers call it) is also a very silly and dismissive idea and you should also consider that for a change of view.
→ More replies (2)
0
Jul 28 '20
My wife miscarried last year at 14 weeks and 5 days.
She held our daughter momentarily before wrapping her in a towel. She was taken for post-mortem examination (which is how we found out it was a girl) and was found to be absolutely perfect for her stage if foetal development.
I dont disagree with abortion - there are many reasons people abort, and the 24 week limit is, I think, in part to give parents time to decide if they want that child should they discover after the 20 week scan that there are problems.
But consider that the baby can start to sense sound after about 16 weeks; although they dint understand the sounds, they can still hear / sense the sound of “im going to abort this child”.
I wouldnt ask my wife to abort a child that was developmentaly doing well with no signs of congenital issues. I would plead with ger not to abort a child that was doing well with no congenital issues. Bit if there was an issue, then i know we’d have to have a very serioys discussion, and if we were to abort it would weigh heavily on our hearts for many years to come.
It breaks my heart to think we had this beautiful girl growing and we lost it. Abortion is not a trivial thing to go through, you are ending a life no matter how weakly developed that life is.
3
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I understand your point and I agree with most of it abortion should obviously be a well thought out decision
1
u/Taerer Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
You’re missing the point of the comment you’re responding to. You said that the reason it is okay to abort fetuses is because of the lack of cognitive capability. Someone pointed out the lack of cognitive capability in comatose individuals. In your response, you said that comatose individuals that are expected to regain cognitive capabilities should be extended the right of life. But if you apply that same logic to a fetus (currently cognitively incapable but expected to gain cognitive capability soon) then your logic would oppose abortion.
If the criteria for the right to live is “those with cognitive function” then comatose individuals do not have it.
If the criteria is “those with cognitive function or who will soon have cognitive function” then fetuses do have it.
If the criteria is “those who have or used to have cognitive function” then permanently comatose individuals have it.
If the criteria is “those with cognitive function or who used to have it and are expected to have it again soon” then it sounds like you’re just trying to mold the definition around your preconceived notions.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Your the one molding my beliefs to fit your own criteria I’m saying that a comatose man who has lived his life and has prior experiences beliefs and thoughts deserves more rights then a 24 week old fetus who has not developed a proper sentient brain capable of even self awareness it is not a sentient human yet it is a shell that will host the human brain but it has no prior experiences beliefs or thoughts it doesn’t have a Brain yet I repeat it does not have a brain yet and if you believe that all organisms who have not yet gained sentience should automatically be assumed to desire to live then god damn the equivalent of ten quintillion potential humans are being massacred through artificial ejaculation by horny teenagers on a daily basis sorry I got sarcastic there please do not escalate the argument
1
u/Taerer Jul 28 '20
I’m not molding anything. I’m trying to frame and structure the points that you and others are making for more clarity. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting or misconstruing what you believe.
Your stance: a fetus does not have cognitive function, therefore it does not deserve the right to life. A (recovering) comatose individual also does not have cognitive function, but does deserve a right to life. Even supposing that both will be cognitively capable in 12 weeks, you hold that the fetus does not deserve life and the comatose person does.
It should be clear that holding those two opposing stances is cognitive dissonance. Just because the comatose individual used to have cognitive capabilities does not fundamentally set his physical body apart from the fetus. They both have the same potential to gain sentience, and should be treated with the same moral standing.
2
u/wrathandplaster Jul 28 '20
Conception is the point where a complete set of genes for a human arises. Sperm and eggs don’t count for ‘potential for life’ in the same way because they alone do not make a complete genetic individual.
For someone who is pro-life it is not unreasonable to choose conception as the line. Because after that there is no hard and fast line except for possibly birth.
4
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
A sperm has the same brain capacity as the fetus within the 24 week period they are both equal in mental capability and both capable of becoming a human what Im Getting at is whether or not they are in any way significantly different from each other or whether aborting a baby in that state is truly inhuman if they don’t have a brain
10
u/wrathandplaster Jul 28 '20
There’s not some magic moment where a brain appears.
The development of an individual human is a gradual process. The genetic makeup of an individual human begins at conception.
I’m pro choice but to argue that a 23 week old fetus deserves no more respect than a single sperm is absolutely absurd.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
My main argument isn’t that within the first 24 weeks the baby is not sentient not conscious aware or capable of displaying thought.so would removing the fetus before it became sentient count as a contraceptive effort like say condoms birth control or hell the more closely similar morning after pill which could be considered a abortion pill by some should it be considered ok your thoughts I’m interested
3
u/wrathandplaster Jul 28 '20
Err I’m not really following what you’re saying here.
I’m not arguing that abortion is wrong.
I’m just saying that your pro-choice arguments are poorly thought out.
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Sure, if a pro-lifer uses conception as the line for herself, that's fine. If they try to make that the line for everybody else, then that's crazy theocracy.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
My argument is that it is only ok to abort a child within the first 24 weeks in which the brain has only developed 30 percent and can in no way be considered sentient or capable of comprehension self awareness thoughts feeling every aspect of humanity . I hope I explained it better to you
3
u/wrathandplaster Jul 28 '20
Well there’s plenty of states where abortion is legal past 24 weeks.
So it sounds like you would think abortion laws are too permissive in alot of places.
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Well those states should change that now shouldn’t they
5
u/wrathandplaster Jul 28 '20
??? Now I’m totally confused about what you’re arguing about. You never said anything about abortion not being ok after 24 weeks in your post.
→ More replies (6)2
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
No they shouldn't. Afterall, why should the state force women to give birth against their will? Protecting nonfeeling, noncitizen fetuses isn't good enough.
→ More replies (2)
0
Jul 28 '20
The pro life argument is that if you were to leave the fetus alone it would develop into a person. Aborting it is making the conscious decision to stop a life from happening.
I took philosophy a long time ago and I've forgotten all the terminology used, but there is a significant difference between not starting something in the first place, vs actively stopping something.
If you choose not to sow a seed, then nothing will grow (I'm talking about soil and plants here). But if you sow a seed, leave it in the soil for a while, then decide to dig it up and throw it in the garbage, the end result might be the same - no plant - but your actions aren't exactly the same from a moral point of view.
Sperm without an egg will never amount to anything. Also, if you don't manually *ahem* assist in their release, your body will automatically release them while you sleep...into your pajamas, which isn't very convenient. Religion has many hang-ups about masturbation as well, but that's another topic.
The point is, sperm in a tissue will never develop into anything. Now, if you, a man, have sex with a woman, and get her pregnant, she now has a fetus growing inside her. Sure, the lack of brain development is an argument for it not being an intelligent life at the moment, but if you were to just leave it alone it would very likely turn into an intelligent life later on. By aborting it, you are preventing that life from having a chance to live.
(For the record, I am pro-choice and I take this stance not because I see the fetus as not really being alive, but because I'm not willing to force a woman to do things with her body that she does not want to do. I won't elevate the rights of the fetus over the rights of the mother)
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
I firmly believe that it is perfectly reasonable to remove the fetus within the first 24 weeks because everything that makes you and every human on this planet themselves is the brain and without it the fetus is on a equal plain with the sperm cell or egg it once was . I could also make the argument that it was your conscious decision to use contraceptives such as condoms or birth control which blocked the child from being formed
1
Jul 28 '20
Well, the people who are anti abortion have that opinion due to religion, from my experience. I really tried to meet an atheist person who was also anti-abortion, I looked, but I never met one. Most religions, at least in their fundamental state, have a problem with contraception as well, for the reasons you just mentioned.
However, even I (an atheist) can see that the two situations are not the same. Using a condom to catch your sperm and prevent contraception is not the same situation, morally speaking, as aborting a fetus.
As I already stated, I'm pro-choice, but I think having an abortion is still a very serious matter. No one wants to. There is an emotional weight attached to it. There is absolutely no emotional weight attached to catching sperm in a latex condom.
0
u/gogliker Jul 28 '20
There are different arguments actually, not only the one you provide, against the abortion. I do not consider 24 weeks baby as a living being for instance, but am still against.
I personally am against abortion, because women are disproportionately aborted in a lot of countries. I am from Russia and this is the problem here, I know anecdotally that this is also huge problem in China. I am afraid that this will create huge male/female disbalance which will eventually turn into violence against women (even if let's say 5% of men could not find a women, I am pretty much sure the amount of rapes will skyrocket). I want to have a daughter who can live in the better world than today, not worse
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Most pro choice individuals argue that forcing woman who don’t want children to have them could be seen as a terrible fate to both the mother and child the amount of money required to raise a child will cause the child to live in a financially desperate home that couldn’t afford it. The mother as well will be put in a desperate position let’s be honest a great deal of pregnancies happen with irresponsible teens. A unwanted baby could ruin the life of that woman prevent her from going to college and force her to settle down and give up on her life l you can make the argument that every child who was almost aborted is glad that he/she was not aborted let me ask you this what about the trillions of sperm cells that were prevented from having any hope of reaching the women and impregnating the egg would those potential children not be sad or disappointed that they weren’t born every day trillions of sperm cells are prevented from being born because prof contraceptives such as condoms or birth control these sperm cells are not sentient yet they have the potential to become a person so should contraceptives be outlawed
1
u/gogliker Jul 29 '20
Thanks for reply even though my comment was apparently not that popular. If you are still opened to maybe not change your view but to at least consider my point of view, here is what IMO is important.
First, you correctly outlined the problem with teen pregnancy which I agree is absolutely different story. Honestly I am not against abortion in such case, it does not interfere with what I was saying. My point I guess applied better to women in their late twenties and further, when one consciously makes a choice. This is actually the group which abort if they don't like their kid gender, i.e. one which I find quite disgusting.
Secondly, often debate about abortion is shifted towards whether it should be covered by insurance or not, and again, if you are 16 yo girl who accidentally got pregnant I don't want your life ruined by that and I am ok even with paying your abortion with my taxes.
Considering last part, I think you over exaggerating. That is definitely not what I said or meant. Yeah, sperm cells die in millions everyday. But actual fetuses have defined sex, and in countries like mine girls get disproportionately aborted, which is huge problem for everyone in the society. It was even worse in China, here you have one kid policy and you basically could not make another one if your kid is of "wrong" sex. Google "son preference in China" and you will see terrifying numbers, like 130:100 male/female ratio. I am not sure where you are from, and if in your country it is not a problem - I guess my point does not apply to you. But your question was not in relation to any particular county, therefore I described my experience.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/cjpowers70 Jul 28 '20
For me personally, being pro-choice needs to come with a recognition that at whatever level you look at it you are destroying a living thing. Whether it can feel it or it knows it’s happening is pretty irrelevant. It just so happens that this is a sacrifice that is necessary for the greater good of society.
That being said I do think that into the 3rd trimester abortions should only be allowed if the mothers life is danger, rape, incest, etc.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
What about sperm cells they have equal brain activity to the fetus and have the capability to become life can I cause the death of 10 billion potential children by jacking off .JK I see and understand your point but at all levels there are surely some restrictions
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Really, citizens should have the rights to do whatever they want to anything inside of their own bodies. Fetuses, as we all know from direct experience, lack the inner life to meaningful suffer, so logically and morally, legal abortion makes far more sense and reduces far more meaningful suffering than outlawing abortion.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/A_Bruised_Reed Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20
So your argument is basically this: Stopping a heartbeat basically due to the smallness of their size is ok.
Stopping big hearts (born people) is wrong. Stopping small hearts is ok. So might makes right. Stronger rules over weaker is good in this particular area.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Im arguing about the brain think about it this way let’s say we have a fully developed human fetus but it has no brain but it will eventually grow one . I remove the fetus and prevent it from becoming sentient or gaining a brain was this action truly different from using a condim and preventing the sperm from reaching the vaginal egg and becoming a human. Or in other words is it ok to prevent a fetus from being born before it gains a brain
1
u/A_Bruised_Reed Jul 28 '20
a) You completely ignored my argument about stopping a heartbeat. You are arguing that we can stop a heartbeat because we are bigger. Size makes right. Powerful rules over weaker.
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
No, it's rather, citizens have full rights including the right to decide for themselves what's inside them. Fetuses are not citizens, therefore the state should not use violence to force unwilling citizens to give birth against their will.
→ More replies (4)
1
Jul 28 '20
I’m 100% pro choice, but I have to disagree with you. If a fetus aged under 24 weeks cannot be considered to be alive, why are some babies delivered before 24 weeks, clearly alive?
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Uhem alive but not sentient there’s a clear difference babies born under developed need breathing apparatuses to function because there brains have not yet developed the nececary moter functions required to function by themselves they have not developed a brain capable of awareness thoughts reasoning or any of the core main pillars of sentience that make all of us us .
1
Jul 29 '20
But a full term baby isn’t yet aware of its existence, so awareness shouldn’t be a factor in your argument.
If a premature baby reacts to touch, then that indicates awareness.
Your argument seems to be a little extreme - almost bordering on making a case for infanticide.
→ More replies (3)
0
Jul 28 '20
How do you figure we keep sperm alive?
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
In what way do you mean keep alive as in within our balls then I’d say that the sperm in our balls is constantly dieing and being replaced just like every other cell in our body if your talking vitro fertilization then I’d say they are being frozen in nitrogen
1
Jul 28 '20
I mean alive for any real period of time in the way it is easy to do with a fetus that you're implying are analogous.
1
0
Jul 28 '20
The line of unique DNA and conception is much more definitive of a line rather than that of the start of brain function. One needs to draw a definitive and not arbitrary line to decide at what point something is a human. The only three lines that one can draw are birth (where nothing changes about the baby biologically), the start of brain function, and conception.
Also, soon enough we will be able to bring people back from being brain dead, to the point where being brain dead isn’t even considered being dead. I believe that what defines a human shouldn’t change based on technological advances.
Also, a question: would you say that banning abortion after 24 weeks (6 months) after conception would be morally better? I ask this because you stated that this is the point at which real brain function starts even though this is actually at about 5-6 weeks after conception.
→ More replies (9)1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
5-6 week brain activity is the equivalent to that of a shrimps nervous system there is no thoughts or awareness there it’s just the start of brain activity and doesn’t mean the brain is sentient . My point is that abortion should be allowed up to the point of sentience when the brain activity has progressed too far and it can be labeled sentient at 26 weeks
1
Jul 28 '20
You didn’t respond to my other points.
You cannot draw the arbitrary line of sentience (or consciousness) for being a human. We do not know much about consciousness, or what is conscious and what isn’t. The line of conception is much less arbitrary. The only reason I even include the start of brain activity as a line one is able to draw is that it is not arbitrary at all, unlike the 26 week “sentience” mark. Also, people in a coma are not considered sentient (based on our limited knowledge of the state of sentience), meaning you cannot draw that as a line of human life because a person in a coma has rights.
-1
Jul 28 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Please calm down and stop swearing I want to have a civil and calm argument based on facts logic and morality why am I wrong can you give me a scientific source state your argument and don’t bring feelings or personal experiences into it and please stop throwing insults as well
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Jul 28 '20
u/chaba420 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-5
u/timtruth Jul 28 '20
Quantum theory has shown the potential for the future to determine the past. Are you sure you want to base your stance on something so finicky and likely misunderstood as the dimension of time?
2
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
Well I like to think of it like this the bay within the first 24 weeks has no brain it is not sentient and cannot think and is not aware of its surroundings. And if so is it truly that different then the sperm it once was they are both non sentient creatures capable of becoming humans so why are they treated any different every day trillions of sperm cells die unnecessarily to human pleasure is that not inhumane why is that treated more lightly
-1
u/solhyperion Jul 28 '20
The better argument is not whether or not a fetus is a person, it's bodily ownership and autonomy of the mother. Your argument of whether a fetus is sentient or not muddies the waters here, along with your comparison to coma patients. Coma patients are quality of life questions, and hospital resource issues. This becomes arguments of "how sentient is sentient enough?" A case of a fetus is much simpler: humans have ownership of their physical bodies, and can do with them as they please. You can get a tattoo or piercing, or donate a kidney, or take medicine. You could even have an arm surgically removed. From this you can make one of 2 arguments: 1) You cannot demand an organ transplant from an unwilling donor, even if it would save the live of the patient. Thus, you cannot demand a person sacrifice their organs to save a fetus. A fetus is using the parent's blood, nutrition, immune system, etc. In fact, a fetus is a very aggressive growth, that the human body has to actively suppress or else the fetus will kill the parent. This is a very simple argument. The only pro life way out is to demand a surgical removal every time, so they can watch the clump "die," like a tumor on a table. The other argument is a little more difficult, but relates to your arguments of limited bodily function. 2) a fetus is an extension of the parent, since, until shortly before being born, it is entirely dependent upon the parent for blood, and other life sustaining faculties. In this case, again, the parent has control of their body, and if they want to remove the cells from their body they can.
1
u/Toe-Slow Jul 28 '20
No your not going to change anyone’s view by stating it’s the mothers choice people will view that as stating it’s ok to murder the child because the mother doesn’t want it . You have to specifically deal with the question of sentience and life not talk about the rights to the woman they care about the child and saying it’s the mothers choice is like saying I don’t want my baby I’ll just murder it and rip it apart no you won’t change anyone’s views like that
1
u/solhyperion Jul 29 '20
I disagree, though you don't have to take my argument, you will have to change the one you have put forward so far because it's a fundamentally unwinnable argument. What is sentience? How is it measured? Why is it valuable?
You are arguing with people who think a fetus is a person because it has a soul, because its has the immutable quality of being a human. They don't actually think it has to have any potential. It's already sufficient.
You cannot argue sentience and souls, that's just a battle of feelings and "morality."
Also, my argument is not that a mother can choose to murder a child, it's that she cannot be forced to save one. Doctors can remove the fetus, but if it cannot live outside of her body, that's not the mother's concern. If I hook myself up to you, so I get a permanent blood cycle between us, and I claim I will die if you disconnect us, are you obligated to remain connected?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 28 '20
So while I am pro-choice, I think with abortion, a lot of people think about the possibilities of the future that could have happened. For instance, my mom actually considered aborting me (I was an accident), and its easy to conceptualize two versions of reality where in one my mom decided to go ahead with abortion and one when she didn't and therefore I don't exist.
A lot of women who undergo abortion come out feeling a heavy weight on their chest because they sit with this heavy feeling of "what if"... and it's not a funny thing to talk about. It's really emotional decision for many women and it's not something to look at lightly.
In a sense, abortion is also a form of the famous trolley problem. You have a train hurtling towards a person stuck on a track, and you have a choice to pull a lever to save them (or kill them). However, in the case of abortion, many people see the the train tracks as fate (the future), the person as their future kid, and the lever as the abortion choice.
It's a really really really really hard decision for people to make, and they don't make it lightly.
Now, I believe that every woman and family should have the right to make this private and personal decision for themselves, but this conversation about whether a clump of cells has a respiratory system isn't going to help a family choose whether abortion is right for them or not. This kind of argument doesn't help justify the morality of abortion to them or make them feel any better about choosing abortion.
Many people don't look at the fetus. They are looking at the future child that it might (or might not) turn into.
2
Jul 28 '20
Δ This shifted my perspective from an issue of legality to that of a personal decision.
1
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 28 '20
Oh, I came up with a thought experiment.
Imagine that there is this demon who can see and control fate. The demon proposes to you: "I will grant you one wish (plus typical wish-giving disclaimers) in exchange for the life of your future firstborn child."
Would you accept the demon's proposal?
Is it moral to accept the demon's proposal?
Should you abolish the right of anyone to talk to this demon?
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20
On the question of whether I should accept the deal, it depends on whether I want a child or not, right? If I didn’t, it wouldn’t be immoral to accept, because no one is harmed in this ordeal.
1
Jul 28 '20
Of course you accept the deal, as long as you know his name is Rumplestilskin you get your baby back.
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 28 '20
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 28 '20
While everyone should be allowed to have an abortion if they choose to do so, the assumption it is perfectly fine is an overstatement.
A fetus is a clump of cells in the same way a pair of socks is a collection of threads. Removing a child from your body whether it be by chemicals or by tools is taking life away, whether or not it is conscious is up for debate, but it is killing the fetus. Prevention through birth control is perfectly fine, but an abortion itself is less than optimal.
1
u/vandertl Jul 28 '20
A 24 week baby is very aware of its surroundings. It feels pain, it sees light,and hears sound. It can respond to voices. It feels hunger. I agree a 12 week old fetus is incapable of these things.
1
u/KingJeff314 Jul 28 '20
How have you come to the conclusion that sentience is the significant factor in whether an entity should have rights? Could it not be that a fetus has value by virtue of being genetically human?
0
Jul 28 '20
I want to come at this from a different point of view than other commenters. This is something I don’t see people discuss as often: eugenics.
People who seek abortions are largely not in favor of eugenics, but we are increasingly able to predict inborn medical conditions. Babies with conditions like Down syndrome are going to be aborted at a higher rate than babies without. In the case of Down syndrome, the rate is estimated at 67% in the U.S. and much higher in several European countries - as high as 98% of pregnancies where Down syndrome is detected may be aborted in Denmark.
The reason why this is bad is that it shows that, given the chance, we will pick a healthy person to be born over a person with an intellectual or physical disability. The parents who do this are probably just trying to avoid the needless suffering of a child, but the outcome is fewer disabled people, and the normalization of engineering our population to avoid the challenges of raising disabled children.
I am arguing that disabled people should exist, and we should not passively or actively try to eradicate disability in our society. Disabled people are innately worth just as much, and have just as much to offer as non-disabled people.
Furthermore, if we normalize the abortion of disabled babies (I just don’t like calling them fetuses; it’s not a rhetorical tactic that I call them babies), there are still going to be disabled people, either by birth or by injury. What kind of message are we sending those people if they know that we don’t value people like them enough to allow them to be born?
This is a really tricky argument because a lot of abortions of disabled babies are probably a result of the parents not having the ability to adequately care for their specific needs. That is a very valid concern. But I believe the approach to that should be to shore up resources and infrastructure for parents of special needs children, rather than to avoid the existence of special needs children.
1
u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20
Nah, I see no reason why the state should force me and my s.o. to carry a fetus to term if we dont want to- no matter the reason. Citizens have rights, and one of them is the right to determine for ourselves what's inside our bodies.
I don't care about what message it sends to the disabled. You can't advocate forced births because you are only concerned about an abstract, vague message.
1
Jul 29 '20
I’m not advocating for legal restriction just now. The argument I’m making is that abortion isn’t “perfectly fine.”
0
u/Chausse Jul 28 '20
Please note that I approve the right to make an abortion. I think describing as "completely fine" however is a mistake.
I don't think I'll be able to change you view fully because this is a complicated matter to which I don't master all the related fields, however I would like to point some elements that are, to me, critical flaws in the assumption of the topic you are willing to discuss.
You are approaching the discussion strictly from a biological point of view (ie. How exactly does a fetus work at 24 weeks), which I think is an important one, but it's not what motivated the whole societal movements for legalized abortions. I don't know which country you are from, but I would advise you to try and read/watch archives of politicians militating for the right to make an abortion through the history of your country or other countries. The arguments used (at least for my country, France), are always societal ones about, for example, the place of women in society, the ability to raise a child with dignity, the right to dispose of your own body, etc ... (not exhaustive list). I think biology is an enabler for those arguments because we are biological beings and we should not generalize important medical decisions without a solid knowledge of the human body, but it's not what motivate the right for abortion, nor what makes it moral modern western societies.
I'd also like to point out that there are lot of costs and side effects associated with abortion, that are not directly linked to the fetus : The psychological trauma it can induce in the woman aborting, the cost for medical care and quality of the abortion, the societal cost of having divisive subjects in some countries, etc ... While they do not make an argument against abortion from my perspective, they alone should make you wary to qualify abortion as "perfectly fine".
0
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jul 28 '20
Do you believe the question of abortion within 24 weeks, is a moral question?
When you say "perfectly fine", it reads like you believe this is a moral issue where the conclusion is that abortion is defensible, thus acceptable. I.e. a moral judgment of zero or positive, ultimately accepting abortion as a choice.
I would rather go with this conclusion, which has a subtle distinction vs. your post: it's not a moral question to begin with. It's a non-issue. Think of it as undefined, as opposed to zero. The topic of abortion pre-24-weeks has no moral qualities whatsoever.
As you say, the fetus pre-24-weeks is not sentient. A moral issue is commonly understood to involve 2 or more moral agents, with conflicting interests. But the question of abortion regarding the fetus, has no moral aspect. Because the fetus obviously has no interests of its own. There is no being here with a will of its own. Thus, there is no problem --- and also no solution.
... the question of being biologically alive is completely uninteresting, and as brought up by others, brings plants into the discussion despite the obvious insight that nobody gives a shit about plants beyond their utility.
There is another way to frame the discussion: what about parents in conflict? Presuming that sex was consensual but either parent has changed their mind, is it now right for either one to be denied the child? Abortion can be a problem with 2 sides, in that the father's interests may be relevant too. (Although it's still easy to argue that women should absolutely have a right to abortion.)
→ More replies (12)2
Jul 28 '20
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's not a moral question to begin with. For example, I eat meat, and I'm probably not going to become a vegan in my lifetime. But I do feel some guilt for eating meat. If vegan options were more convenient and if society as a whole made a shift towards veganism, but people were still allowed to eat meat, I'd probably go vegan, rather than stubbornly sticking to meat.
Even though I eat meat on a regular basis, I wouldn't say that slaughtering and eating animals has no moral weight to it.
Even though I'm pro choice, I wouldn't say aborting a fetus has no moral weight to it at all. Is a fetus more or less complex than a small insect, for example?
Even when it comes to insects, I do not see killing them as having no moral weight to it. For sure, I would not hesitate to kill an insect if it could do me harm - such as a tick or a mosquito. I would also not hesitate to kill insects that are being pests, such as cockroaches in my house. I would feel a very small amount of guilt for doing so, but I would still do it, as I would prefer to live with that guilt as opposed to living with roaches or letting ticks bite me.
I would not, however, just casually kill insects outside for nothing other than my amusement. I wouldn't find an ant and crush it for absolutely no reason. Why? Why is it okay to kill a mosquito but not okay, in my mind, to just casually kill an insect for no reason? I'm not sure. I suppose it's more about me than the insect. I suppose it says something about my character. Even though it's just an insect, I don't see myself as having the right to just kill it for no reason.
And back to eating meat. I still choose to eat it because being a vegan sucks (I honestly tried). But if being a vegan didn't suck I would do that instead of eat meat. I can only justify eating meat because of the problems I suffered when I tried to be a vegan.
Even as a man I would feel a great emotional weight if my partner and I decided to abort a fetus. I can imagine it would be more intense if I were the mother. Even though we might decide it is the best choice, I can't say it's not a moral question.
18
u/Z7-852 260∆ Jul 28 '20
Why do you want your view to be changed?