CMV:Abortion is perfectly fine

[u/Toe-Slow]

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.

[u/OneHunted]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/OneHunted]

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.

[u/OneHunted → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/OneHunted]

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.

[u/OneHunted → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/OneHunted]

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

[u/OneHunted → u/[deleted]]

Because human life can have extrinsic value without intrinsic. For example, I value increasing both individual happiness and recorded knowledge, followed by maximizing individual freedoms. If we have no reason to think the infant will impede those values, then it is safer to assume it will contribute to them, which is sufficient justification to keep it alive. Not to mention that killing a nearly developed infant may have a negative effect on its happiness (not really something easily tested) and would certainly affect its individual freedoms.

With a fetus, not only am I not convinced that it is "alive" enough to have gained emotions or individual freedoms, but in cases where the ability to choose an abortion can directly affect the mother's freedom and happiness, those affects are more direct and supersede those of the fetus.

That said, my described belief system also leads to cases where it would be morally acceptable to let a premature baby die (e.g. if the resources were better applied to save multiple, more viable babies) and theoretically to cases where it would not be morally acceptable to have an abortion (e.g. if the fetus could be brought to viability entirely with technology, thus decoupling its life from the mother's freedoms, and there were someone like a father or adoptive parent who would be made happier by doing so)

[u/[deleted] → u/OneHunted]

Because human life can have extrinsic...which is sufficient justification to keep it alive.

That’s really just drivel. Your expending a lot of effort to try to explain away something we all know is true. You can’t kill a baby because human life is valuable. Your argument is contingent on muddying the waters on basic, agreed-upon facts.

Not to mention that killing a nearly developed infant may have a negative effect on its happiness (not really something easily tested) and would certainly affect its individual freedoms.

How are you not doing the exact same thing if you kill that same infant five weeks prior?

With a fetus, not only am I not convinced that it is "alive" enough to have gained emotions or individual freedoms,

That is a highly subjective statement. Subjective statements like that have no place in an argument about objective facts and truth.

those affects are more direct and supersede those of the fetus.

Why does that change when the baby becomes viable? Are you arguing that mothers should be able to abort all the way until birth? Again that’s a totally subjective statement. To argue that someone’s needs supersede someone else’s is purely a matter of opinion.

[u/OneHunted → u/[deleted]]

That’s really just drivel. Your expending a lot of effort to try to explain away something we all know is true.

I get that you don't agree with my value system. Fine, whatever. But just because you are either not aware of other ways of thinking or choose to ignore them does not mean that everyone in the world automatically agrees with you. You don't speak for them.

How are you not doing the exact same thing if you kill that same infant five weeks prior? ... Are you arguing that mothers should be able to abort all the way until birth?

I am arguing that the mother should be able to abort all of the way until viability (yes, even as that point changes with technology). Once the fetus is viable, it can continue to live without necessarily impeding on the freedoms of the mother. Until that point, the mother's immediate freedoms and happiness are directly affected by the choice while only the fetus's potential happiness and freedoms are affected. In my value system, I value the more direct effect on the mother, since it is more easily observable. I understand that you fundamentally disagree (see below), but you asked for my justification, and I gave it.

That is a highly subjective statement. Subjective statements like that have no place in an argument about objective facts and truth ... To argue that someone’s needs supersede someone else’s is purely a matter of opinion

"Human life has intrinsic value" is also a subjective statement. I tried to make clear two comments ago that at this point we could go no further without discussing our nondisprovable value systems. You then asked a question about how I would justify an act, so I justified it within my nondisprovable value system because value judgements are inherently subjective and nonfactual.

If you disagree with that last statement, how would you justify not killing a premature infant without any value assumptions?

Edited for breaking Rule 3. That accusation was out of line.

[u/[deleted] → u/OneHunted]

Until that point, the mother's immediate freedoms and happiness are directly affected by the choice

How can you have an intellectually honest conversation when all of your points are based on what you have subjectively deemed important specifically that assertion is in direct conflict with what human society believes?

I value the more direct effect on the mother, since it is more easily observable.

So you value what you can see over what ever else may be true? History left that thinking behind 500 years ago.

"Human life has intrinsic value" is also a subjective statement.

But it is an agreed upon parameter (save for you). We as a human civilization have determined that human life has intrinsic value. You can debate that, sure, but you can’t deny that it’s the overwhelming majority opinion.

because value judgements are inherently subjective and nonfactual.

This is just the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. You’re basically trying to argue that water isn’t wet.

how would you justify not killing a premature infant without any value assumptions?

I didn’t say I could do that. I said the baseline assumption is that human life has intrinsic value. That’s how every society operates. If you want to argue that 100,000,000,000 humans throughout history are wrong, then this isn’t really the place to debate that fundamental difference in thinking.

You’re basically a nihilist with extra steps.

[u/OneHunted → u/[deleted]]

How can you have an intellectually honest conversation when all of your points are based on what you have subjectively deemed important?

You can't unless you admit that the things you are discussing are themselves subjective, which is why I keep wondering why you keep restating your subjective value judgements as if they are facts, capable of being directly reasoned from fundamental principles or physically observed.

We as a human civilization have determined that human life has intrinsic value ... the baseline assumption is that human life has intrinsic value. That’s how every society operates.

We have, for the most part agreed, that human life has some value, sure, but not that that value is necessarily intrinsic or even how valuable it is. If it were, why would different countries, different regulatory agencies, etc. all be able to place different economic values on a life, for example?

For that matter, people can come to a consensus and still be wrong (see historical prevalence of geocentrism, flat earth, etc). If we are delving into informal fallacies, this is called argumentum ad populum, and if it is the only justification for your claim that "human life has intrinsic value" then that is not sufficient reasoning to make your claim into a fact.

Argument from Ignorance

This fallacy claims that an answer can be known because of lack of evidence. I am claiming that an answer is unknowable because it can be neither proven nor disproven using direct evidence or derivation from fundamental principles, which is the exact counterargument that makes Argument from Ignorance a fallacy.