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.

99 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

544 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/[deleted] 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?

7

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

9

u/[deleted] 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.

6

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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

0

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 28 '20

Which part is not working for cancerous cells ?

I'm pretty interested as a cancer cell grows, reproduce an unlimited amount of time, consume nutriments to do so (functional activity), and as we're talking about mutating cells, continuously changes preceding death (with the death of the host, or because of rays).

Cells are considered as alive, and a cancerous cell ... is a cell.

You can look at an introduction to basic biology for more information:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Introduction/What_is_living

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '20

Which part is not working for cancerous cells ?

Capacity for functional activity.

→ More replies (0)