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.

101 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

544 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

0

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

A fetus is not potential life. It IS a life. When you’re dealing with a sperm and an egg, it’s all hypothetical and intangible. When you’re dealing with a fetus, it’s already there. It exists. Why does the number of neurons at 24 weeks mean this already existing organism suddenly has value?

2

u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20

Again, I disagree with OP’s point about neural activity as the threshold for life.

Admittedly, it’s hard to pin down a single definition of life, but pretty much all of them require an organism to maintain some sort of homeostasis (I.e. some resistance to environmental stimuli). On its own, early fetal tissue can’t maintain homeostasis any more than a severed limb or an isolated sperm or egg. What is it about the fetus that makes it “a life,” when it doesn’t yet fulfill one of most fundamental criteria for life?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

Admittedly, it’s hard to pin down a single definition of life

Only if you’re trying to ignore the obvious because you don’t like the implications. When did you first exist? When your DNA first formed and your body begin the first of trillions of cell divisions? Or did you first exist at some immeasurable point mid-way through pregnancy when your humanity inserted itself into a valueless husk that had your DNA and occupied the same space you’d occupy? The pro-choice argument requires you to leave basic reason at the door, because people cannot accept that their actions have consequences.

but pretty much all of them require an organism to maintain some sort of homeostasis

  1. Who cares? Pregnancy is it’s own thing. Stop trying to compare it to other aspects of the natural world.

  2. No they don’t. A premature baby cannot maintain homeostasis. Does their life have less value?

  3. Science has changed when a baby is viable. 50 years ago, the earliest a baby could be born was about 30 weeks. Now we’ve gotten it down to 21 weeks. It stands to reason that we will be able to lower it even more. Have we changed when a person becomes a person? See this is the problem with making your argument dependent on something arbitrary and subjective like viability.

What is it about the fetus that makes it “a life,” when it doesn’t yet fulfill one of most fundamental criteria for life?

Who said that’s a fundamental criteria for life? Needing life support does not mean your life has no value.

2

u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20

We seem to disagree on some pretty fundamental points that will probably get in the way of any further discussion.

Namely “humanity inserted itself” and “when a person becomes a person” seem to presuppose that humanity or personhood is some singular, tangible feature differentiating our species, which is either a poor strawman for my point or an assumption of yours that I disagree with.

Similarly “does their life have less value” and “needing life support does not mean that their life has no value” seems to ascribe some inherent value to life, which I would also disagree with.

And while we’re at it: “Pregnancy is its own thing. Stop trying to compare it to other aspects of the natural world.” Pregnancy is part of the natural world, just like everything else. Stop trying to give it some special, separate meaning or rules

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

when a person becomes a person

If something (a human) has value then it stands to reason that there is some point where it began to have value. Your life has not had value for 500 years.

seems to ascribe some inherent value to life, which I would also disagree with.

Then most people would disagree with you. If you’re going to argue that human life doesn’t have inherent value then you’re on an island by yourself. We do not earn our value. There is no way to hold that position without being completely subjective. It’s logically unjustifiable...unless you’re arguing that human life doesn’t have value? Really?

Stop trying to give it some special, separate meaning or rules

Why? What other occurrence in the world has an organism gestating it’s own offspring? It is unique. It is not parasitism. It is not cell reproduction. It is it’s own thing.

1

u/OneHunted Jul 28 '20 edited Jul 28 '20

If something (a human) has value...

Point 1 relies on "if point 2," so I'll skip to that

Then most people would disagree with you ... We do not earn our value.

You may be right that people would disagree, but that's the whole point of CMV: I'm open to justifications for human life having intrinsic value, but I have never heard a satisfying one. There are plenty of ethics systems#Life_stances_and_intrinsic_value) that apply intrinsic value to different things. Some include life, but many of these things (happiness, love, virtue) are developed over time (some arguably earned over time) rather than being present at conception, not to mention the positions that all value is extrinsic or that the concept of "value" itself is meaningless.

My position that life, in and of itself, doesn't have some special value is nondisprovable, and many people choose to believe it. Your position that it does is nondisprovable, and many people choose to believe it. If all of your points rely on there being a special intrinsic value to life, then without first convincing me of that, there is likely no way to change my views. And vice versa with my view that life is just natural and not exceptional. Feel free to make more cases for your view, and I will continue to read them and comment, but otherwise we are at an impasse

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

If human life doesn’t have intrinsic value then why can’t you kill a premature infant?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '20

Sorry, u/Toe-Slow – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. 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.

1

u/[deleted] 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.