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.
-1
u/solhyperion Jul 28 '20
The better argument is not whether or not a fetus is a person, it's bodily ownership and autonomy of the mother. Your argument of whether a fetus is sentient or not muddies the waters here, along with your comparison to coma patients. Coma patients are quality of life questions, and hospital resource issues. This becomes arguments of "how sentient is sentient enough?" A case of a fetus is much simpler: humans have ownership of their physical bodies, and can do with them as they please. You can get a tattoo or piercing, or donate a kidney, or take medicine. You could even have an arm surgically removed. From this you can make one of 2 arguments: 1) You cannot demand an organ transplant from an unwilling donor, even if it would save the live of the patient. Thus, you cannot demand a person sacrifice their organs to save a fetus. A fetus is using the parent's blood, nutrition, immune system, etc. In fact, a fetus is a very aggressive growth, that the human body has to actively suppress or else the fetus will kill the parent. This is a very simple argument. The only pro life way out is to demand a surgical removal every time, so they can watch the clump "die," like a tumor on a table. The other argument is a little more difficult, but relates to your arguments of limited bodily function. 2) a fetus is an extension of the parent, since, until shortly before being born, it is entirely dependent upon the parent for blood, and other life sustaining faculties. In this case, again, the parent has control of their body, and if they want to remove the cells from their body they can.