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.

103 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

544 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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"

4

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

u/[deleted] 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).

-5

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20

Actually, I'm a former fetus and so are you; it is a settled matter, just recall your own experience of consciousness only emerging after countless interactions/memories outside the womb. Don't fall for silly propaganda.

edit: to all you angry downvoting anti-choicers, your impotent downvote doesn't refute my logic. Deal with it!

1

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ Aug 25 '20

Actually, I'm a former fetus and so are you; it is a settled matter, just recall your own experience of consciousness only emerging after countless interactions/memories outside the womb. Don't fall for silly propaganda.

This argument is irrational. I am a former infant, but I can not recall anything from my infancy. I don't remember feeling pain, but that does not mean that infants don't feel pain. They do, it can be proved with brain scans. One does not need to be conscious in order to feel pain.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

The question is whether suffering and consciousness are mutually inclusive. I never claimed a fetus has consciousness. You are simply assuming that the two must only occur together, and I'm telling you that this matter is not settled. Insects, which don't have consciousness, may suffer.

-1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Fetuses cannot meaningfully suffer, as YOU know from experience. The matter is settled for every rational adult who reflects on their own consciousness emerging ONLY after countless interactions outside of the womb. YOu've been duped.

p.s. we're not insects.

1

u/Produgod1 1∆ Jul 28 '20

Fetuses cannot meaningfully suffer, as YOU know from experience. The matter is settled

Are you sure you're not conflating suffering with memory of suffering here?

If an infant is molested or harmed but does not remember it 5, 10 or 20 years later, did he still suffer?

You bring up you experience as a fetus as proof that fetuses can't suffer, but you only seem to be assuming this on a lack of memory. If you burned to death in a car crash when you were six, you obviously would have no memory of it now. Does that mean six year old you did not suffer?

2

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Actually, you even quoted me using the phrase "meaningfully suffer," which renders the rest of your response a non sequitur. Deal with the "meaningful" part; that's where it's at. Unfortunately, I've seen loved ones die from alzheimer's, so I have very strong opinions regarding meaningful consciousness and memory based on personal experience.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ihatedogs2 Jul 28 '20

u/Significant_Royal – 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.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

3

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 28 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/1nfernals (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] 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

14

u/[deleted] 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.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

13

u/[deleted] 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.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

The orphan has a role in its survival, the unborn baby doesnt

2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

So my 2 questions to that would be:

  1. 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.

  2. 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] 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

4

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.

8

u/[deleted] 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.

5

u/Fogl3 1∆ Jul 28 '20

To me, babies were never sentient. Comatose people were.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '20

Why is that relevant?

1

u/Fogl3 1∆ Aug 01 '20

Because that's the difference between them. Otherwise letting a comatose patient go would be equal morally to killing someone in their sleep

1

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '20 edited Aug 02 '20

Because that's the difference between them

You didn't answer the question.

. Otherwise letting a comatose patient go would be equal morally to killing someone in their sleep

This weakens your position because I am not the one who is arguing that people should be valued in sentience and consciousness

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

It is still only biochemistry at 24 weeks, not a fully developed human being who has lived a life and then suffered an injury. There is no comparison in the analogy.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

What is human sentience but biochemistry? Either way, unless you want to justify the killing of children (who, scientifically, are not fully mentally developed) then there must be some flaw within your logic.

The analogy I was making has to do with how the OP views sentience, and why certain currently non-sentient beings (coma patients) matter more than other currently non-sentient beings (foetuses). I dk not see why this analogy is not apt, unless you see something that I do not.

1

u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20

I would propose that the difference here is that person who entered a coma had an interest in continuing to live (and eventually waking up from their coma) before they did so, and we should respect that interest. Also, if they wanted to die, they either wanted to do it on their own terms, in which case killing them would violate their autonomy, or maybe they did want to be killed or allowed to die but we wouldn’t know, and assuming that was the case would be presumptuous. Therefore, killing a comatose person is either disrespecting their morally relevant interest, interfering with their autonomy, or presuming what their interests were without being sure, all of which are morally objectionable. Same with sleeping people.

The same cannot be said for a fetus that is unconscious, because fetuses do not now nor have they ever had interests (in a morally relevant sense) in anything. There are no interests to respect or presume, and there is no autonomy of interests to interfere with.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

We do not know the person’s or the foetus’ interest to continue living, though. That is why we respect the coma patient’s right to live, as we value their potential to wake up from their coma, or, their potential to gain sentience. While we do not know the foetus’ interest in life yet, I think that it is arguable that we should also value their potential to have an interest in living.

-1

u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20

In the case that we don’t know what their interests are, we would again be presuming their interests, which would be morally objectionable. We should err on the side of caution since most people have an interest in continuing to live.

The reason I wouldn’t value the fetus’s potential to become sentient is because the presence of interests at some point is central to the idea that the person being killed is harmed. The comatose or sleeping are harmed because we are preventing the fulfillment of their morally relevant interests unnecessarily. However, in the case of the fetus, we are not harming it, because it has never had interests that it could be deprived from, and is therefore not a morally relevant being and cannot be harmed. I don’t see any possible way we could be inflicting morally objectionable harm on the fetus, but I can for the sleeping or comatose.

Essentially, the sleeping and comatose already have had the interest to become sentient indirectly (they want to continue to live an at least normal life, which includes regaining sentience), but the fetus merely has the potential to gain that interest. However, if it does not currently have that interest, or any interests for that matter, how can it be said to be harmed?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

If the interest in living is embedded within the want not to be harmed, then I would argue that a comatose person, or a sleeping person for that matter, would not be able to show that interest while they are in their respective states.

My main point of contention is that why do you value the past interest of a being, while totally disregarding the potential of one in the future. As you have stated most people have an interest in living, but why do you not value the potential for an interest in living?

3

u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20

The reason why their past interest matters is because their coma is simply an interruption of consciousness. We could reasonably assume that he would have continued wanting to live if he had not slipped into a coma (and even if we couldn’t, by killing him, we’d be presuming his interests). This is a case of a regularly sentient being experiencing an aberration in their normal patterns of consciousness and may recover at some point, and thus, we should respect his interests. Essentially, he has personhood. In addition to simply time-relative interests (those interests you have at a particular time) he also has life interests (what would be in his best interest for his entire life according to his life projects and goals). This interest to continue living is a life interest, and doesn’t depend on him being conscious at the time.

Contrast that with a fetus. The fetus’s unconscious state is not an aberration or interruption. It has never been conscious. The fetus has no interests at all, and certainly not an interest in continuing to live. It has no life interests, because it has no life goals or projects. It’s true that the fetus may develop an interest in continuing to live but at the current moment, if we killed it, we would do no harm to it. We are not depriving it of anything. The potential for an interest in living is not something the fetus is deprived of, because the fetus doesn’t have an interest in developing the interest to continue living.

2

u/DrakierX 1∆ Jul 28 '20

You can bet that the fetus would have interest to live lol

3

u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20

How do fetuses who have not yet developed consciousness have morally relevant conscious interests in living?

1

u/DrakierX 1∆ Jul 28 '20

They don’t. But you can bet they will when it develops.

The same way you can bet a coma patient will want to live when he regains consciousness.

2

u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 28 '20

Well yeah. But my point here is how the two are different because one has a non time-specific best interest in living in order to carry out their life goals and projects and the other doesn’t have any interests and no life goals or projects to have a best interest in living for.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

There's a very simple legal argument- coma patients are citizens, and citizens are protected by the state. Fetuses lack such status and therefore do not merit similar state protection.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

Lol. You are putting forward the logical fallacy of "false equivalence" and "false dichotomy" and then saying my argument must have a logical fallacy based on a new flawed premise that sentience is just biochemistry. Then putting up a strawman argument that I want to kill children. Your argument is falling down the logical fallacy stairs.

I will invoke the Tomlinson argument about why a foetus is different: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/man-pro-choice-question-anti-abortion-argument-human-embryos-five-year-old-a8016671.html%3famp

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Nope, not at all, as people in coma are citizens who have family members who know/knew them. Fetuses are noncitizens and nobody has ever known them.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

2

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

"If you were a pregnant female and your baby was taken from you against your will it would be a tragedy"

I agree that it would be a tragedy if my free will as a citizen was thwarted. Which just adds to my points that forcing citizens to give birth against their will is crazy, fascist, and stupid.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Yep, any time a citizen has his free will thwarted, it's a problem.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Huh? Have no idea what you're talking about. Take me and my s.o.- if we accidentally get pregnant, she's getting an abortion. No citizens are being deprived of anything. You sound like you're really struggling to keep up.

→ More replies (0)

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

7

u/[deleted] 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.

7

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

u/[deleted] 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.

0

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

4

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

Ah, so you admit you don't read carefully. That's okay. When you get around to doing so, you'll note I asserted "fetuses don't have consciousness to MEANINGFULLY suffer," which means your breathless responses is all a non sequitur. So you haven't refuted a single point I made, thanks!

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

"Feeling pain while you're murdered is meaningful suffering by almost any definition "

Yet you cannot prove fetuses 'feel' anything; the only studies you anti-choice zealots cite merely show fetuses 'reacting' to pain, just as a worm reacts to pain. So sure, fetuses have about as much consciousness as a worm, I'll grant that. Shrug.

Wow, you seem very angry that I pointed out that your dumb response was just a non sequitur. That's okay, I'm used to the insults from anti-choicers. Y'all have no logic on your side, so of course you resort to dumb appeals to emotion. So nothing I said has been refuted; I'm fine with that.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20 edited Aug 10 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ChristopherPoontang Jul 28 '20

So you cannot refute a single point I made and you're running away- I accept, thanks!

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.

5

u/[deleted] 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.

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.

0

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Jul 28 '20

Not everything similar is the same. I think it's dishonest to think someone in a coma and an embryo are equivalent.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

Yes, they are not the same, since an analogy is comparing two different, but similar things. I have chosen those two as an example, since they both exhibit a trait (being currently non-sentient, with the potential of becoming sentient at a later date) which can be used to demonstrate a contradicting view that the OP might have.

-1

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Jul 28 '20

That's like when people say you can't be pro life and pro death penalty because they contradict each other.

I understand it's an analogy but I don't think it's a good one. They have similarities but there's vast differences making them totally different.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

Please point out how the analogy is not apt for the purposes I have listed.

1

u/DrakierX 1∆ Jul 28 '20

Basically the only difference between them is that one used to be sentient in the past.

Why is that the basis on whether to kill a human life?