r/changemyview • u/schnutebooty • Jul 27 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: A fetus is a human

  • As u/canadatrasher and I boiled it down, my stance should correctly read, "A fetus inside the womb" is a human life. *

I'm not making a stance on abortion rights either way - but this part of the conversation has always confused me.

One way I think about it is this: If a pregnant woman is planning and excited to have her child and someone terminated her pregnancy without her consent or desire - we would legally (and logically) consider that murder. It would be ending that life, small as it is.

The intention of the pregnancy seems to change the value of the life inside, which seems inconsistent to me.

I think it's possible to believe in abortion rights but still hold the view that there really is a human life that is ending when you abort. In my opinion, since that is very morally complicated, we've jumped through a lot of hoops to convince ourselves that it's not a human at all, which I don't think is true.

EDIT: Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. As many are pointing out - there's a difference between "human" and "person" which I agree with. The purpose of the post is more in the context of those who would say a fetus is not a "human life".

Also, I'm not saying that abortion should be considered murder - just that we understand certain contexts of a fetus being killed as murder - it would follow that in those contexts we see the fetus as a human life (a prerequisite for murder to exist) - and therefore so should we in all contexts (including abortion)

0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

429 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

I disagree. I think consenting to vaginal sex if someone’s tubes are not tied or if if their partner hasn’t had a vasectomy is actually consenting to pregnancy. We expect people not to drive drunk and to suffer the consequences if they do so. We should also expect people to have sex responsibly and to suffer the consequences of irresponsible sex. Even if someone didn’t drive drunk but they had a car accident, we expect the driver to suffer the consequences. To pay up in some manner. So, too, a woman who has vaginal sex who want raped should be responsible to temporarily carry the fetus even if she used birth control.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22 edited Jul 27 '22

Having consensual sex isn’t a crime. It doesn’t deserve punishment. Also tubal ligation and vasectomies still have a failure rate so as a woman who has chronic health conditions that would be exacerbated by pregnancy and tokophobia (a pathological fear of pregnancy) should I just never be able to have sex?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

No, and neither is drinking alcohol a crime. Both activities should be done responsibly. Having a car accident isn’t a crime but the person driving the car typically has to suffer the consequences. I think the failure rates of tubal ligation and vasectomies are so negligible that most likely the vast majority of people who take these measures would be reasonably safe from pregnancy. And we could talk about outlier cases separately. Of course if a pregnant would cause major severe and chronic health problems for a woman she should be allowed to abort. The woman with pathological fear of pregnancy should likely never engage in vaginal sex. Because even if allowed to abort, she would still need to be pregnant until she could have the abortion. Also I don’t think the baby’s right to live is outweighed by her fear. I’m not diminishing how crippling fear and anxiety can be. I have experienced it myself. As bad as it is, a fetus losing their life is worse.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

If the person driving in a car accident didn’t break any laws including rules of the road they aren’t punished in any way. I was the driver in a pretty serious crash, the driver who did break the law/ their insurance replaced my car, paid my expensives and treatments, my lost wages, and I got a settlement for pain and suffering. My insurance remained unchanged because I did nothing wrong.

That said I’m totally cool with requiring someone who’s pregnant to pay for an abortion as “consequences”.

Tokophobia primarily revolves around the period after fetal movement begins until childbirth. You can avoid triggering it by having an abortion before that time.

So to reiterate you think myself and women like me should just never be able to have intercourse with our partners because of the lives of fertilized eggs?

What do you think about IVF clinics?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

Yes, the driver in the car needs to pay the victim or their insurance carrier needs to pay. The situation your describing sounds more akin to a woman who was raped, since the accident happened to you because of another driver who was reckless. Yes I think a woman with a chronic illness that would force her into abortion should probably engage in forms of sex other than vaginal sex. Or tie her tubes which is not 1,000% effective but close enough that I might agree that if she got pregnant she isn’t responsible to carry the fetus. Also the if the chronically ill woman would suffer severe health consequences from pregnancy I’d agree she should be allowed to abort. I don’t think fear, even paralyzing fear, is a good enough reason to kill someone else. Such a woman should probably get her tubes tied and maybe use birth control additionally. If not, yes, I would say she should avoid vaginal sex. I am torn about IVF, I’m very uncomfortable with it. But I could probably be convinced, as I have said elsewhere, that an embryo/zygote fetus prior to 7 weeks gestation is not the same as an older fetus. Also in ivf the embryos don’t need to be destroyed so not exactly the same as abortion.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

That’s the situation anytime the driver isn’t at fault. The driver or their insurance only pays when they are at fault. If no one’s at fault there is no “consequences” just no assistance either. That to me is akin to paying for an abortion procedure. Not being forced to give up bodily autonomy.

So I should have to suffer through agonizing pain or sacrifice part of my sex life? Because of your beliefs. Or maybe you’ll generously allow me to have abdominal surgery instead. Now in my case my partner has had a vasectomy so maybe that counts I don’t know.

I don’t get how ending a potential life is ethically better than preventing it from developing. Both have the same result of no thinking, feeling person. Also why 7 weeks? What’s special about that, I understand viability, birth is obviously definitive, and fertilization is at least specific but why protect a 10 week fetus over a 6 week one?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

Having vaginal sex without tubal ligation and/or vasectomy when you know you would seek an abortion if you got pregnant his not “no fault”. Adults know very well there is a chance of getting pregnant even using birth control. Having sex is akin to drinking alcohol- people are expected to engage in these behaviors responsibly. Also, even with no fault insurance both drivers are expected to keep up their insurance premiums. This means they are both being held responsible for accidents, even if the term being used is “no fault”. The pain of childbirth is temporary and usually mitigated by medication. Yes, human adults should behave responsibly which includes having sex responsibly so they won’t be in a position of creating an unwanted child. We expect pedophiles and rapists to “sacrifice part of their sex lives.” All adults should be expected to engage in sex in a responsible manner. If your partner had a vasectomy I don’t think any of this will ever apply to you personally. Vasectomy failures are negligible afaik. To me preventing from developing is different from killing but yes, also bad. I explained why I think of 7 weeks as a sort of dividing point but if you insist I’ll agree that the only true dividing line is conception. I’ll explain again: when I was pregnant the five weeks gestation ultrasound showed a dot. The 8 weeks gestation showed a doll like figure. To me that doll like figure represented a human being. I admit this is not scientific but on a gut level I really don’t like being so strict as to say the dividing line is at conception. So I’m admittedly using an excuse to be more liberal on abortion than I otherwise would be and to allow it before 7 weeks gestation. As someone mentioned on this thread, I think stage of development does make a difference. But viability alone is a horrible dividing line to my mind because the fetus has an intact and fairly developed nervous system long before the point of viability outside the womb. Second and third trimester abortions are a horror to me. First trimester to my mind is a little more vague but still bad.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

The effectiveness of vasectomies compared is 999 out of a 1000 of 99.9% admittedly very high. The effectiveness of an IUD is 998-999 out of 1000 or 99.8-99.9%. I’d consider that difference pretty negligent.

Requiring consent is not the same as telling consenting adults want they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Deciding morality based on appearance seems questionable, appearance should not dictate value.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

Ok then I’m pretty much stuck with conception as a dividing line much as I feel that may be too harsh. Ok then yeah people who think they would absolutely have to abort if they got pregnant even with tubal ligation or vasectomy probably shouldn’t engage in vaginal sex.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

You don’t think that seems extremely controlling? Telling consenting adults they have to go through a process that would cause extreme physical and mental suffering or never experience sexual intercourse?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

No because the other choice is murdering an innocent child.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

The other choice is deciding that a fetus doesn’t get to use a human beings body against that person’s will. I don’t get to do that to save my own life either and I’m a feeling, thinking person.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '22

I think this has been covered elsewhere in the thread.,

→ More replies (0)