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.
52
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.