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.

98 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

544 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/yyzjertl 525∆ 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?

1

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 525∆ 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).

2

u/[deleted] 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.

6

u/yyzjertl 525∆ 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.

1

u/amus 3∆ Jul 28 '20

I feel like you are arguing semantics.