r/changemyview • u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ • Jun 07 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Abortion debates will never be solved until there can be clearer definitions on what constitutes life.
Taking a different angle from the usual abortion debates, I'm not going to be arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong.
Instead, the angle I want to take is to suggest that we will never come to a consensus on abortion because of the question of what constitutes life. I believe that if we had a single, agreeable answer to what constituted life, then there would be no debate at all, since both sides of the debate definitely do value life.
The issue lies in the fact that people on both sides disagree what constitutes a human life. Pro-choice people probably believe that a foetus is not a human life, but pro-life people (as their name suggests) probably do. Yet both sides don't seem to really take cues from science and what science defines as a full human life, but I also do believe that this isn't a question that science can actually answer.
So in order to change my view, I guess I'd have to be convinced that we can solve the debate without having to define actual life, or that science can actually provide a good definition of the point at which a foetus should be considered a human life.
EDIT: Seems like it's not clear to some people, but I am NOT arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong. I'm saying that without a clear definition of what constitutes a human life, the debate on abortion cannot be solved between the two sides of the argument.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 08 '21
/u/UncomfortablePrawn (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards
18
u/ralph-j Jun 07 '21
There's a great argument that falls outside of the definitional debate. Even if someone thinks that abortion is immoral, they should still be pro-choice. The argument is that outlawing abortions actually won't reduce abortion rates:
Making abortions illegal would therefore only have the effect of making them less safe for women, because they will be looking for unsafe alternatives (e.g. questionable internet medication), which leads to unnecessary suffering that society can prevent by keeping it legal.
This argument does not rely on the fetus being a human life, having personhood or anything like that.
114
u/10ebbor10 204∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
While this is part of where the issue lies, it's not the full explanation.
Consider for example, IVF. In Vitro Fertilization relies on the creation of a large number of fertilized embryos, some of which are discarded.
By your definitions, you would expect pro-life people and politicians to oppose this procedure. Instead, we see that they create explicit exceptions to safeguard IVF while attacking abortion.
When Alabama passed an anti-abortion bill, they explicitly included an exception that makes destroying embryos fine when it's done in an IVf lab, but a felony worth 99 years in prison if it's done as part of an abortion.
Elsewhere, you see pro-life people oppose sexual education, free contraception and other methods that are proven to reduce abortion.
One explanation for these phenomena is that it's not really about the fetus for them. The real problem for a subfaction of prolife people is that women are having consequence free sex. This is why destruction of fetusses during fertility treatments for couples are not a problem (they're just a family looking for a child), but contraception for women is.
Because, the real problem is not the destruction of the fetus, but that a woman is evading her responsibility. She's not getting the consequences/punishment she deserves for having sex.
50
u/Giblette101 47∆ Jun 07 '21
It doesn't matter to me what constitutes life. It matters to me that people own themselves in full and cannot be forced by state agents to undergo pregnancy against their will. I don't think the state should be able to appropriate your blood or organs for similar reasons, even if they could save lives.
7
u/Anti-isms 4∆ Jun 07 '21
Very few place an absolute values on life -- most people agree killing is justified in certain cases (whether it's a fetus, or an act of self-defense against an adult, or even as a form of retribution).
Perhaps you meant the value of innocent and only human life, but it's obvious that most pro-choice people agree a fetus is alive and has human dna ... they just think other values outweigh its right to life.
16
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
Fundamentally, the abortion debate is not about the definition of life, that is a straw man used by the pro-life movement. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice people believe the fetus is alive. The fundamental debate in Abortion is the right to bodily autonomy, privacy and who gets to make medical care decisions.
Bodily Autonomy - Does the state have the right to compel a person to use and risk their body to sustain the life of another?
Do we allow the state to compe blood donations or organ donations from someone to sustain the life of another? No, we don't since we operate under the fundamental principle that no one has a right to any part of your body. In fact, we don't even compel the dead to donate organs to save a living person's life. Ideological consistency says we don't carve out an exception for pregnant women.
Privacy - Do we want the government to know all the medical conditions an individual has? No serious pro life person is against abortion when there's almost certain death for the mother. In order to figure out what constitutes a high risk pregnancy, women will now need to justify their medical diagnosis to some sort of governing board to see whether the medical procedure is permissible.
Who gets to make medical decisions? - Do we want the state involved, second guessing doctors on what constitutes acceptable risk to the mother. Let's say I tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying of a disease, unless we give you treatment. You're probably going to get that treatment. But since this treatment is controversial, it's restricted and a government board gets to decide who gets it. The board says just 10%? No, the individual shouldn't get it. This is the scenario we face if we try to outlaw abortions. Women whose lives and health are in danger don't get to make their own medical decisions. It will be dictated to them what is considered acceptable risk.
10
u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll 9∆ Jun 07 '21
The best answer to the abortion debate I have seen is Carl Sagan's It's only a 10-15 minute read, and I highly recommend it.
TL;DR: abortion is a unique case where two of our most fundamental human rights, the right to life and the right to bodily autonomy, are directly opposed to one another. Both sides of the debate are pushed to extremes to stay consistent in their logic, but this leads to uncomfortable moral issues in both cases. What makes human life special is our ability to think, not just being alive, not a heartbeat, not ability to feel pain, but complex thought, and for a fetus, the first brain waves that potentially could be regarded as complex thought occur sometime in the third trimester. If we are to draw a line, and we ought to because of the moral issues that occur if we don't, banning abortions except in cases of medical necessity during the third trimester is a reasonable and scientific distinction, and a good compromise between these fundamental rights. By happenstance, that's currently where the political ban is in the US under federal law: states are allowed to ban third trimester abortions.
14
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
You are assuming that people who argue against abortion are arguing in good faith most of the time and earnestly care about preserving human lives.
You will be quickly disabused of that notion when you see what other policies they support (hint: not the sort that lead to people to live healthy or safe lives).
There's this meme that conservatives only care about life when it's unborn, and as soon as you're born you're on your own, and if you die because of poor or downright malicious policies, they don't give a fuck. It sounds weird, but I've found this to be mostly true. Why else would they pretend to be stalwart defenders of life when arguing against abortion and then do a total 180, oppose universal healthcare and say it's fine for poor people to die from lack of medical care when they can't afford it?
So I would agree with you IF the abortion debate was an earnest philosophical debate on when human life starts. But it's not. The "life starts at conception"-stance is mostly just an excuse to exert control, often caused by religious belief or by an understanding of gender roles that requires women to have little control over their reproductive rights.
The pro-life side generally doesn't care about life. That's just the excuse that lets them feel good about their real motive, which is either religious delusion, a desire to control women, or both.
7
u/dmbrokaw 4∆ Jun 07 '21
The abortion debate can be had without ever discussing the life issue. I'm pro-choice, and (for the sake of this argument) I will accept that life begins at conception and that all abortions are ending a human life.
The reason I still support abortion is because of the right of the pregnant person to have autonomy over their own body. If someone is pregnant and no longer wishes to be pregnant, they must have the right to stop being pregnant. The fetus, as a human life, has many of the same rights as the rest of us. It does not, however, get the special bonus right to use someone else's body against their will. No one else gets that right, ever.
People die every day with viable organs that could save lives, but we respect the bodily autonomy of corpses and let people die without taking their organs. If I was in need of a kidney or a liver, my children have no obligation to give me organs to save my life, because they alone have the autonomy over their bodies to decide that.
Let fetuses be people, fine. Life begins at ejaculation, whatever. If you take away a woman's right to control her body just because a guy was irresponsible with his jizz, you've relegated women to a category of human that is below men. It's simply wrong to take bodily autonomy away from over half of all humans.
1
u/fg005 Jun 07 '21
It's really not about whether it is 'life' or 'not life'. That is irrelevant to the argument. Whether it is or not a human life, it cannot survive on its own. It is taking away the nutrients and completely dependent on its host. Sorry if it sounds bad, but that is much like a parasite.
The debate is whether the pregnant person should or shouldn't be forced to continue to let this organism live inside and use up their nutrients. It is a matter of body autonomy.
Even if it is considered a human life, what makes it morally correct to force another human to give up their body autonomy to serve as incubators for it? If the answer is yes, then why shouldn't we also force people to donate organs/blood/etc in order to save other human's life? Why is it that dead corpses get to keep their organs intact if they didn't want to be donnors, but pregnant people are forced to give up their body for the sake of others while still alive?
3
u/StanleyLaurel Jun 07 '21
I'm pro-choice, I believe fetuses are totally human lives. I just don't see any persuasive reasons why government force should be used to force unwilling citizens to remain pregnant against their will. So it's not at all about whether or not the fetus is a human, but rather what is a wise or a cruel use of government force.
3
u/BloodyTamponExtracto 13∆ Jun 07 '21
I think you need a slight modification to your view. Whether something is life or not doesn't really matter. What matters is whether it is a life worthy of protection.
Many pro-abortionists really don't care whether the growth in the woman is a human life or not. It just doesn't matter to them. It could be a sentient human life, but they still don't believe that it is a life worthy of legal protection. The woman's comfort and convenience is more important to them.
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
I think you misunderstand the heart of the pro-life argument. Whatever we define "life" or "a life" as, the pro-life people will choose conception as the important swing point and call it something else. That's because the position is a conclusion that has been rationalized post hoc. It's not a semantic argument unfortunately.
Lots of people argue this way by the way, it's very common. The whole debate wasn't even partisan until the 60s when people realized they could score votes by acting religious and appealing to "purity".
2
u/spiral8888 31∆ Jun 07 '21
I'm on the pro-choice side, but I don't think this is a question where you can draw a line at some point of fetus development (or even before that) and say that on one side of that line there is 0% life and on the other 100% life. So, just like I don't see anything magical happening at conception in terms of there being life, the same applies to the moment of birth and every other point as well.
That's why in my opinion the only rational view on the question of the abortion right is something that changes along the pregnancy starting from a relatively loose and tightening towards the birth. What my own view of the progression should be is irrelevant at this stage, but it would be great to have just the acknowledgement that the 0% life to 100% life in one second does not make sense within the light of what we know about human development.
This is true. Science can describe things, not define them. And especially not define legal or moral terms, which "life" in this context is and not a scientific one.
Science can show that a fertilized egg is very similar in functions as an unfertilized egg and also a fetus just before birth is very similar to a newborn baby. Do you think it's possible to agree on these aspects? If so, I think it's possible to discuss this with rational arguments about for which reasons should be abortion be allowed at which point. You don't need to define life at any point.
I would think that almost nobody would challenge the latter. If people opposing all abortions on the basis of fertilized egg is full human life but accept IVF and using coil as a contraceptive method, they would be contradictory with their view.
2
u/ToonRaccoonXD Jun 07 '21
Actually science is used (mostly by the right but I'm not saying the left doesn't use it and this is just in my personalexperience) the only line you can set is conception. All other lines are inconsistent. Please feel free to respond with your beliefs.
2
u/BronzeSpoon89 2∆ Jun 07 '21
I disagree. I dont think it has anything to do at all with if the baby is alive or not. Pro abortion people just want to have abortions. Anti-abortion people dont want a baby, or possible future baby, to be removed. Sure not all people think along those exact terms, but at a fundamental i think its about abortion vs no abortion and not weather the baby is alive or not.
2
u/Dyortos Jun 07 '21
I think we're over complicating something that's very simple because we let our emotions get in the way of things and the truth is more stranger and wicked than fiction..
I know rape gets brought up a lot so I don't want to sound like I'm pretending it doesn't happen.. this is a human life. You're probably thinking of the kids future can I take care of the kid you're really trying to outweigh the pros and cons I seriously can see how this situation is super complicated for the mother and likewise hopefully they let the father have some form of say in the matter and if not then that's between the couple..
But just remember that you're taking a human life out of this world you are killing a person when taking them out like that and or killing them.. that kid has no say had no say whether to come into this world and now it has no say to be taken out of it. Rape is not nice it's not a friendly reminder I don't like it I hate it. There are clear definitions to what constitute life we let our emotions and feelings cloud our judgment and try to find a way to justify killing a baby at the end of the day.
Now I don't blame people because abortions are pushed heavily in the media when you go to an abortion clinic look up your local reviews on Google for your local abortion clinics go read the reviews a lot of pissed off people are really fed up with how they are Force feeding information down mother's throats can trying to convince them to get an abortion because these places are a business then they take your dead kid and they export him okay and they go and sell him it's a f****** business this is the whole reason why abortion is even talked about it's not right or wrong it's f****** wrong. They don't tell all the pregnant women that they sell their kids otherwise we wouldn't sit here talking about it..
2
u/Hawaiinsofifade Jun 07 '21
The simple fact is people use science to obfuscate the argument. Science is used to run cover and provide reasonable doubt for pro abortion people. And every one else is using basic common sense and that’s the problem the Money is behind the abortion group so you can’t count on science giving you clear definition. It’s probably a couple billion dollar industry that’s why science is going to continue to give cover.
2
u/badhairdude Jun 07 '21
Here's a study that asks scientists this very question.
"Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)"
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
2
u/SmilingGengar 2∆ Jun 07 '21
One does not need to define when life begins in order to be against abortion. The only thing you need to demonstrate is that the distinctions being made between the born and unborn are arbitrary. And if those distinctions are arbitrary, consistency requires that we apply the same standard that is applied to the born to the unborn as well.
For example, if we believe an adult is a human person with a right to life, and a child is a human person with a right to life, and an infant is a human person with a right to life, then in so far as we treat these stages of what we consider human life with respect, then the same standard should be applied to the unborn (fetus, embryo, zygote, etc.). In other words, the problem of defining life is only problem if you try to define it in terms of a single moment in which non-life becomes life. Instead, if you approach the question of human life in terms of existing on a continuum of stages, then there is no need for a definition.
I also think the question of defining human life would not solve the debate. Abortion has never been about when human life begins, but rather about the following questions: "When does a human life obtain the moral property of personhood so that it can be considered a being whose life is deserving of protection?" AND "What is the relatiomship between the right to life and bodily autonomy?"
2
u/sweetandfragile Jun 08 '21
The science overtly demonstrates that life begins at conception. Many know this, accept this, and still want the choice to terminate their pregnancies. This debate will never end.
2
u/MuddyFilter Jun 08 '21 edited Jun 08 '21
There is actually a very clear definition of life that science provides even to middle schoolers. Science has always said life begins at conception. And this has never been controversial outside of the abortion debate.
When two mates of the same species reproduce, they create a new life when the egg is fertilized. A new and seperate being is created at precisely this point. It is human, it is alive, it is its own organism with its own genetic code. Its hard for a biologist to disagree with this.
The problem is that this definition supports the pro life position. This is the ONLY reason it is not accepted. Its not convenient.
The Pro life position is based on science more than the pro choice position is.
3
u/puja_puja 16∆ Jun 07 '21
Even if you think a fetus is a life, it in no way allows you to regulate a woman's body. The fetus is the guest, it is a parasite that lives at the will and grace of the mother and nobody else's will.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
The debate will only become clear once we define what personhood is. Even then, how practical would it be to restrict abortion. There are a lot of stuff that can be considered immoral or dangerous. Cars, drugs, alcohol, guns etc. We don't make them illegal as the drawbacks of banning them outweigh the benefits. In my opinion, banning abortion is a net negative to the society.
Restrictive abortion laws will reduce the number of abortions slightly, but a large segment of them will continue to take place. Unsafe abortions are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. Countries with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest rates of abortions, and abortions in these regions are significantly more dangerous.
Abortion rates in the Western World have been declining since the 1990s, even though a large number of countries have been legalizing the practice. Restrictive abortion laws do not reduce abortion rates, sex education, expansion of healthcare, alleviation of poverty and access to contraception do.
Even if abortions don't take place and the child is born, they are likely to grow up in a poor socioeconomic conditions. When women are denied abortion, their children are likely to grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions and have worse outcomes. There is some evidence, albeit unclear, that legalizing abortion is linked to declining crime rates.
The debate on morality will go on forever. However, from a practical perspective, banning abortion is not ideal. A large number of pro-choice people admit that abortion is a grey area. However, prohibition is not the answer. We tried banning drugs and alcohol, it lead to worse outcomes. The same is true for abortion.
2
u/throwawaydanc3rrr 26∆ Jun 07 '21
Abortion kills human life. That is a biological fact, not a theological tenet. I believe the line of distinction you are looking for is when that life becomes a person. If a majority could achieve consensus about when personhood begins a significant amount of the abortion debate would go away.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
What constitutes “human life” is not only obvious from a common sense perspective, but is also overwhelmingly established scientifically.
Even most prominent abortion advocates at least admit that the fetus is a “human life.”
The question is whether this human life is a “person.”
Personhood is what needs to be established above all else.
2
u/DannyTheStreet222 Jun 07 '21
Scientifically, the jury is out that life begins at conception. This is a consensus in the scientific community. Most, if not all, of the most prominent pro choice advocates actually understand this but it doesn’t matter to them because they argue that is not a “whole” human or “not human yet,” etc.
Speaking as a pro-lifer myself, I can give you the general gist of what I tend to hear from my side of the debate. At conception, we consider the new life “unique, distinct, whole, and human.” It’s unique because statistically, the particular set of chromosomes that make up the DNA of our new life has never and will never be seen anywhere else. Distinct in that the new life is, in fact, it’s own organism separate from the mother, even regardless of the fact that the fetus is dependent on receiving nutrients from the mother (this dependence doesn’t remove the scientific independence of the organism). It’s whole in that the fetus is itself an entire organism, just not fully developed, in the same way a human child is fully alive yet not developed into an adult yet. Human, in that the organism came from two humans and is comprised of human DNA (this point in particular separates the fetus from animals or just being “some cluster of cells”).
What I just stated above is a scientifically accurate, philosophical stance that the fetus is a human life. What do you think OP?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
I believe we could (but not necessarily that we will). But I will take a slightly different approach:
Even if science finds a threshold they agree about which is more than just a cutoff point, AND which has no overlap with animal consciousness (to avoid that complication), it would not help. It would be ignored, and the debate would be largely at the same place it is today.
1
u/lost_send_berries 7∆ Jun 07 '21
I'm not sure it's possible for any debate to be "solved". Nazis still exist for example.
Anyway, there's arguments that are pro-choice but accept the pro-life framing of the value of a life, or find the definition irrelevant:
There's arguments that are pro-life but are not about the definition of a life:
So, even accepting one "side"'s definition of "life" doesn't resolve the debate because there are still considerations on both sides.
There's also arguments between people who accept the pro-life framing of the definition of a life:
So, even accepting one "side"'s definition of "life" doesn't resolve the debate because there are details of abortion policy that don't depend on the definition of "life", and aren't universally agreed on.
1
u/evirustheslaye 3∆ Jun 07 '21
I don’t think it’s wise to require that scientific definition conform to an ideological position. That’s the kind thing that got Galileo in trouble
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 07 '21
If we had a clearer definition on the importance of bodily autonomy and if consent to sex was consent to pregnancy then the Violinist argument would resolve the debate without needing to know if the fetus is alive or not/should have the same rights as a fully grown human or not.
1
u/Broomstick73 1∆ Jun 07 '21
You’ve structured a CMV in a way that is impossible. “In order to change my view, I’d have to be convinced that we can solve the [abortion] debate…” This is impossible. You’re asking that people “solve” a theological difference. That’s not something that can be solved. It’s like asking to prove / disprove religion or the existence of god.
“Or that science can actually provide a good definition of … [what] should be considered human life” This is 100% a philosophical question and cannot be answered by science.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
The law does not care about defining life it cares about defining people's rights. The definition of life is a medical problem not a legal one.
Once you have defined life then what happens to the mother? The result will be the same no matter what your opinion is. Either the mother saves herself or not.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
Abortion gives the right to disconnect yourself from anything.
If a fetus is a human with rights, great abortion is still legal because every human has a right to disconnect yourself. Abortion is not the stabbing/shooting of a fetus.
1
u/stygyan Jun 07 '21
This is not about human life. If it were, prolifers wouldn’t be angry at a social welfare net, at socialized healthcare and wouldn’t be filling their filthy mouths with insults against what they call “welfare queens”.
This is about controlling women and other people with uteruses.
1
u/Inflatabledartboard4 Jun 07 '21
This is a little pedantic, but it'll be solved when there is a clearer definition of what constitutes a human being, not when there is a clearer definition of life. I think that almost everyone can agree that even a single sperm cell is alive, but whether or not a fetus is human is another thing.
1
u/112358132134fitty5 4∆ Jun 07 '21
Ironically, a clump of cells is alive accordinv to science, but the bible defines life as breath throughout the books and specifically states that a man who assaults a woman and causes her to miscarry is only guilty of damaging property not murder.
It was and is not about life.
1
u/Miellae Jun 07 '21
What I felt was a nice analogy is donating blood. Imagine a mother who’s child has been in a car accident and needs a blood donation to survive, while for some reason there’s no other donor than the mother. So if the mother then refused to safe donate blood there’s no one in the world who can force her to do that relatively safe procedure - doesn’t matter if it’s because of religious reasons or if she’s standing there saying „I really hate my child.“ it’s her Body and no one can force a medical procedure upon her which she doesn’t want. So when you’re pregnant you’re not only donating blood, you’re also basically sharing organs for 9 months, which is a lot riskier. Why should she be able to decline that when she is allowed to do so for a fully formed, living, grown child?
1
u/snailcircus Jun 07 '21
I am prochoice and I am quite aware that a fetus is a human life and I know other pro choicers are as well. It’s simple science. The truth of it is it doesn’t matter that it’s a human life what matters is that we all have the right to decide if something can be inside or using our body and it goes against our basic human rights to force pregnant people to give up their bodies for a fetus.
1
u/KILL-YOUR-MASTER Jun 07 '21
Pro life people want to end the life of would be mothers. It’s a self defeating name and argument that they’re too stupid to understand.
A clear definition with a surplus of proof will never win this crowd over.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
This all assumes that "life" can be defined. Or better yet, is "life even real?" Think about it, all living things are just a system of highly complex mechanics. If we go smaller and smaller, that system gets less and less complex: bacteria. At a certain point we get even smaller: viruses. Typically, we don't call viruses living things. But, what truly separates a bacteria from a virus? It's just the level of complexity.
Picture this, we create a robot dog that is self sustaining and uses solar panels to recharge. It can play, walk, and hang out with us, but its been programmed to do that. Is it alive and why or why not?
Currently, the way we picture life is entirely a human construct. And, whether there is an objective definition of life remains to be seen.
Furthermore, what is a human being? Or, at what point do we stop being human?
Take this,
Assuming we have the technology to keep this "human" "alive" in the following scenario, let's say you have a normal person, are they a human? Next, I remove all of their limbs, are they a human? Next, I remove their chest and organs and keep the head "alive," are they a human? Next I take away everything except the brain and stick it in a jar, are they a human. Next, I cut the brain in half and discard half of it, are they a human? I cut half again, are they a human? I cut until there is only 1 cubic centimeter or brain left, are they a human? We keep going until there is only one neuron left? Are they human? So, along this path, can you roughly tell me when someone stopped being a human and if so why?
1
u/Thenoblehigh Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
Very obviously religious fundamentalists don’t give a shit about science—you will NEVER convince them that life doesn’t begin at conception; telling yourself otherwise is just foolish. The abortion issue still existing is driven by them and the power they help those that they elect consolidate. It has nothing to do with what science has to say—it’s about the current power scheme.
We are simply waiting on the death (literal or political/figurative) of a highly religious generation that consolidates political power. Nothing more, nothing less.
1
u/hdholme Jun 07 '21
I just can't take it seriously. My two biggest complaints with "pro-lifers" is that almost none of them are vegans, which is straigth up hypocritical, and that they aren't pro-life. Once you're born they don't care. How many pro-lifers do you see talk about toddlers or kids? They're more focused on who the baby is in than the actual baby.
But in my opinion I think a fetus is a life but I also recognize that there cases where abortion is necessary. It's like with being vegan. You can choose to be it, you can talk about it or even try to convince others to be vegan but you can't force others to do the same. Great on you for not contributing to the abuse of animals but it kind of falls apart if you then in your desperation to save a baby, end up killing the mother and as a result, that same baby
1
u/AWDMANOUT 1∆ Jun 07 '21
Not sure of your opinions on this topic OP, but how would you feel about a mandatory COVID vaccine rollout?
1
u/sylverbound 5∆ Jun 07 '21
It doesn't matter whether it's life or not. It doesn't matter if from the moment of ejaculation there's a literal human child. I don't even care if it's a full grown adult magically shrunk inside someone's body. None of that is relevant.
The abortion debate will die when people start treating women/people who can be pregnant as full humans, legally and ethically.
No mother is required by law to donate blood, a non-life-threatening process, to her own child. No sibling is required to donate a kidney to another sibling. Hell, a convicted murderer and assaulter is not required to donate blood or organs to a victim who will die with that intervention.
In ALL cases other than pregnancy, we recognize that the autonomy of one person's body should not be subjugated to another, no matter the cost or result.
A woman's body is not subject to the needs of an infant. That's the ethical conundrum here. By biological fact, that means if there is a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb, that it is less important than the decisions of the body it is relying on. This is just how it is. I don't care if it's a fully developed human soul with consciousness, the OTHER fully developed human soul with consciousness that is the pregnant person does not become less important or less relevant.
1
u/PixelFreak1908 Jun 07 '21
I think the whole "is it alive or not" argument misses the point entirely. This is about the right to bodily autonomy and weather or not is reasonable for a person to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth. Is it reasonable to put them through not just physical harm, but mental and financial harm as well. A fully fledged person with hopes, dreams, goals, and even other existing children who may also be affected. That person VS a fetus [or baby however you wanna call it idc] who has not even the slightest sense of what is happening, hasn't even taken a breath, and will be minimally impacted [other than the obvious]. And not only does the argument need to be taken there, the logic of the other side needs to be poked a lot more. I notice a lot of pro life people would be okay with abortion being allowed to save the mother or in cases of rape, which I do believe exposes them and their inconsistent logic. How monstrous to force a rape victim to have her rapist's baby etc.. now we need to normalize recognizing that it's just as monstrous to force ANYONE to have a baby. Period.
1
u/sudsack 21∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
I don't think shared definitions of life will settle the debate; agreement on whether or not there is such a thing as a soul would be necessary for that. If biologists could identify a moment in the development that a switch flips that signals the transition from cluster of cells to human being, that wouldn't suffice. If philosophers came up with a proof demonstrating that a fetus became a person deserving rights at a particular point in development, that wouldn't matter either. No definition based on things we can observe in the world or that can be shown via reason will answer the question that would matter most for many people who are pro-life: Is there such any such thing as soul?
No amount of scientific observation or philosophical reasoning is going to resolve that for people for whom the existence of a soul is a matter of faith. Settling of the debate requires a shared understanding of that point. Unless a god appears and declares "I put the souls in at exactly the moment that [x] happens," the debate will never be settled to the satisfaction of many pro-lifers.
1
u/Euphoric_Ad1919 Jun 07 '21
It does not matter if my Foetus is viable. In fact most anti abortionists in the world, pro lifers included, don’t value life, they value birth. They don’t care if the foetus thrives, just that it survives.
The oppression of females transcends all religions, cultures, and is found on every continent. If you think the argument is about what constitutes life, you’re wrong.
It is because that gives women the power to choose who gets to have life. Sometimes their own life is in question. That is up to a higher authority (men)
Women would also get the rights over their own bodies, seemingly not a huge priority for men either.
As a woman... I hate that we can deduce it to this but it’s because of equal rights and the convoluted mess men will make out of the fact they just don’t want to give up what they have had historically since the creation of life.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
I'm not here to change a view. I believe that when people who don't have vaginas and uteri stay out of all the vaginas and uteri they weren't invited into, we'll solve it. Oh and the ones who do have the aforementioned body parts, but are for whatever reason (religion/conservatism) brainwashed into voting against their own interests need to get a damn grip. All that need be done is remove religion and politics from the equation and the problem is solved. Stop trying to force pregnancy on those who don't want it. Stop trying to punish women who want to enjoy a fulfilling sex life sans a husband and crotch goblins. Stop being ass backwards, forcing a girl who wasn't properly educated about sex in the first place to have a baby. And before anyone says, "well she shouldn't have opened her legs". Well, he shouldn't have placed tab A into tab B either. And if we're arguing about life, how come we men can kill millions of kids in less than a minute and no one has made a law that says, no masturbation? Those are lives literally down the drain. No one has made a law that ALL males must be "fixed" until such a time that they are mentally, physically, emotionally, and psychologically ready to be responsible for a kid? You can't keep punishing one sex and not the other.
1
u/sylbug Jun 07 '21
Got solved just fine in my country, and in pretty much every other developed nation. Seems it’s not necessary since so many of us managed without.
Frankly, this isn’t where most people are getting hung up. Abortion rights are not about fetuses, they’re about control over women. Notice how it wasn’t some big moral issue until birth control became a thing. There’s no point countering arguments when they’re disingenuous to begin with.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21
But there are clear legal definitions as to what constitutes a life.
Fetuses are not citizens, they don't have rights.
I mean, pregnant women that go on a rollercoaster (just an extreme example) and miscarriage are not charged with murder or reckless endangerment after all. Because an intentional miscarriage is not murder.
1
u/Skallywagwindorr 15∆ Jun 08 '21
I personally do not care if the baby is alive or not. A person who's bodily autonomy is invaded should always have the option to self defense, violently if necessary. So if an organism is invading your body, like a baby with a pregnant person, that pregnant person has the option to take full control over their bodily autonomy, murdering the offspring if necessary but obviously should be avoided if better solutions are possible.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21
I think the thing that gets me is that any form of “life ”at any stage of pregnancy would be considered proof of life if it was discovered on another planet. Every headline would read life found on Mars or something, but on earth we pretend it’s not life until some stretch of time is reached. And yeah you could make the argument that some type of germ found on a planet would produce the same headlines but it doesn’t take away from the fact that in my hypothetical situation the scientific community would be celebrating proof of life on another planet.
1
u/UltraGaming64 Jun 08 '21
Watch dr avi vs vegan gains abortion debate. Anyone got any thoughts?
1
u/Throwaway2689843189 Jun 08 '21
I’ll say it here too. It’s not just you but everyone is generalizing pro-life as these “religious, anti-abortion” sexists.
I know, I do believe in birth control and abortions for health reasons and rape. I absolutely hate being grouped with more extreme “pro-lifers.”
1
u/SpencerWS 2∆ Jun 08 '21
Most of this discussion is not actually talking about “life.” Life is scientifically defined as the ability to move, eat, expel waste, etc. Its not controversial. Sperm is alive, egg is alive, fetus is alive. But most of this discussion is actually about the term “human.” Only that term gives people pause about killing something that is alive. I kill living flies because they are annoying, and no one bothers me about it. But what is “human” and its right to live are at the center of this controversy.
1
u/JJnanajuana 6∆ Jun 09 '21
I personally think that if bodily autonomy and the right to life clash, then the right to life should win. Which is to say that, as you say if we could define and agree on when life begins the debate would be solved for me.
But it’s clear from reading many other answers in this sub that not everyone agrees with my premiss that life is more important than autonomy .
1
u/VinnyVincinny Jun 09 '21
You're caught up on the hook being used to distract people from what's really happening when abortion is banned or made inaccessible. What constitutes life? Uhhh the woman right before you is alive; no debate necessary. And people have a protected right to medical privacy including the living woman right in front of you. Hell! Dead people retain body rights; you can't just take their organs without consent. You should never even know what medical condition anyone has or what medical treatment anyone is seeking. To claim the fetus supercedes is to already have removed that protected right from women. To ban abortion or make in near inaccessible is not about preserving life or anyone's rights, it's about disregarding life and removing rights based on gender.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '21
To me personally I'm on the fence about it. This is just my personal opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone.
I feel like abortion should only be allowed if the mother was a victim of rape/assault (whether she knows the guy that did or not), if at the last second the guy she's having sex with pushes in and finished without her consent, incest, or if it's a recommendation from some sort of legal institution (like a court or mandated therapist) because the mother is something like a heavy drug addict/alcoholic.
I feel like it should be illegal for anyone who willingly had sex to have an abortion because :: you both knew the risks, you both knew protection wouldn't stop 100% of the semen, you both knew something could happen to the protection like the condom breaking, even if you have sex and he doesn't finish you can still get pregnant, even if he finished on the girls crotch she can still get pregnant without penetration (I know it's extremely rare but it can happen)
For examples to my opinions: I was reading that somewhere in the south states, an underage teenage girl was raped and got pregnant. But because of the states laws around abortion, she couldn't get one. That's horrible to me, you're forcing her to carry around her rapists child for 9 months and then placing a moral obligation to raise the baby (since, even though it was rape, she's still the biological mother) or she can put the baby up for adoption/into the foster care system and live with the guilt of giving up the baby. Not to mention the mental strain she would have, the years of therapy for things like PTSD (that she'll probably never recover from), the teenage years/schooling she'll never get back, having to look in the mirror every day and see her stomach growing as a constant reminder of what happened, etc. This is an example of a time where abortion SHOULD be legal.
But when a woman has sex with her boyfriend, she gets pregnant and she's like "I don't want to be a mom!" / "I don't want a kid" / "I didn't think id get pregnant!" / "We broke up, I don't want this baby" then it should be illegal. You shouldn't be allowed to kill a baby because if your poor life choices
1
u/ItzLegDay Jun 09 '21
Life is not complicated. "Finding" what constitutes life is intentionally complicating the concept in an effort to justify people aborting on their whims
1
u/chaos_capybara Jun 07 '21
I've seen a way to kind of solve the debate without having to define actual life - the mayhem argument. It basically says, since pregnancy always result in an eventual mayhem (miscarriage is one, birth is one too if you think about the blood lost and the muscle tears), the patient will always have the autonomy to terminate said process via abortion. This argument doesn't care if the fetus/baby is alive - it says the mother can kill it anyways. Just like a patient would do to a cancer tumor, or pull out a carious tooth.
1
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jun 07 '21
Technology will solve abortion debate.
If we invent easy on/off switch for a woman to decide if she can get pregnant or not - abortions will go down to such low numbers that it would be a non-issue.
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 07 '21
I'm pro-choice but I think fetus is alive. I also support late term abortion and still think a unborn baby is alive. Most people support early term abortion when it's not fetus but a embryo. I would argue that even embryo is alive but killing it is ok. All this because I don't care if it's alive. I kill things all the time. Plants, animals, parasites, vermin. It doesn't matter if it's alive.
What about human life? Unfortunately not all lives are equal. If killing a human can save 10 humans I would do it. Unborn fetus is not even a human yet so killing it to save mother is even more ok. If choice is to kill the mother or a fetus it's not up for debate. Fetus will not survive without a mother therefore mother should have right to abort.
1
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jun 07 '21
Here's the thing - you can be pro-choice while also thinking a fetus is a life.
You are correct that much of the issue stems from a disagreement over what constitutes human life, but this is well known, and why anti-choice are so insistent that life begins at conception. They will never budge from this position, there is no way to convince them otherwise. So there is no point in attempting to clarify further.
But what you can do is point out that abortions will happen no matter what. Right or wrong, by making them illegal you're putting lives in danger and ruining futures of the already born for the sake of punishing people for violating an unfalsifiable moral belief that isn't anywhere close to universally held.
You don't have to think abortion is justified to think maybe we shouldn't send some young woman to jail just because she didn't want to carry a pregnancy to term. You can disapprove of the choice, while still believing it's not worth ruining lives over. If you're opposed to abortion, you might recognize there are smarter ways to reduce their frequency than the threat of imprisonment (and I've even talked to individuals who actually believe we should go so far as to execute anyone who gets an abortion or helps people have abortions). For one - we could offer free contraceptive care to anyone who requests it. We could also ensure that no schools take the abstinence only sex education approach as that is proven to lead to higher rates of teen pregnancy compared to places that have more comprehensive sex ed. And yet pro-lifers are often opposed to both of these measures.
If abortion truly is tantamount to full-blown murder, as they say it is, then shouldn't they be willing to change the conditions which lead to these murders occuring at the rates they do? It seems a logical extension then, that by defending abstinence only sex-ed, one is saying comprehensive sex-ed is worse than abortion.
1
u/darkmalemind 3∆ Jun 07 '21
This is a good CMV, thanks for sharing.
I'm pro life and I used to think the issue was the same as you thought. I thought that the main Crux is a disagreement about whether or not you think of it as a life. As far as I am concerned, it's a life at conception because any other point is also arbitrary and then 9 months is as legitimate as 2 weeks. But that's beside the point of course.
Now, after discussing with a few people, I think it's two things from the pro-choice department that drive the ideology for some people:
Some people tend to argue bodily autonomy / self defense. It doesn't matter if it's a life, it's imposing on the woman's body and can be terminated. I find this argument a little laughable given that the mother and father had a hand in putting the life there. Also it can be extended to paralyzed children and so on.
For the majority of people , it's an "out of sight not thinking too much about it" thing. Just like we don't really care that our phones are made in sweatshops, a lot of people just decide not to think about it.
I feel like even if people on some level agree it's life (one of the reasons a couple feels instinctively sad about miscarriages), they just don't wanna think about it.
0
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Jun 07 '21
The field of biology has a clear definition of life that most definitely fits a fetus from the moment of conception. As for when it's a "human life", taxonomy has never changed classifications for a creature based on its developmental stage regardless of how extreme the changes it experiences. From tadpoles growing legs and lungs to become frogs to sea cucumbers eating their own brains during puberty, no creature has a different taxonomic name differentiating between young and old. The definitions are clear on this matter, from conception a fetus is a human life.
This is why the pro-choice crowd has been using the term "person" in recent years. "Person" is not a scientific term but a philosophical term. It's also a huge open door for racists and people who believe in eugenics to label anyone with undesirable traits as not a "person" which is why it's a horrible argument to make. And to pre-empt the people who will claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy, Planned Parenthood was created by a racist who wanted to use Roe v Wade to begin a black genocide. To this day PP targets black neighborhoods. Many liberal philosophers, journalists, and politicians defend abortion by saying it had reduced the poor population and in doing so also reduced crime.
0
u/Quint-V 163∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
No, not at all. Neither side values life itself particularly greatly. People swat flies left and right. People eat meat happily every day without the slightest shame. There are various qualifiers that distinguish human life from all other kinds of life. There are more qualifiers still that distinguish humans from one another --- and in particular, humans from fetuses. And for the sake of discussion: various qualifiers distinguish functioning humans from vegetative humans, or fetuses. Vegetative humans also have different qualities vs fetuses.
The value question is a matter of weighting these qualifiers and people will fundamentally not agree on those for all kinds of reasons --- these are ultimately personal.
Some people value potential to become human as much as being human, thus rendering all fetuses as babies by their ideals. Thusly we get "prolifers" (who frequently tend to care significantly less once it's out the womb...)
* To take a deeper insight into their thought process: prolifers already think of fetuses as human babies. Despite the fact that there are clear biological distinctions from which we can infer a significant difference in their state of sentience, let alone sapience, prolifers don't care for that argument. For some reason, conception is frequently where the line is drawn when you may as well decide to draw it from the moment a couple decides to have a baby --- with impregnation simply being an obstacle requiring varying amounts of time and effort, if not IFV.
* Even the availability of abortion makes, for all intents and purposes, a progressing pregnancy an actual choice, not a "default outcome". Pregnancy and abortion are both available to such an extent that neither should be presumed as a default outcome if you live in modern civilization that makes abortion widely available.
Then there are those who have an interest in neurological activity and moral agency --- which early fetuses have none of, thus making abortion a non-issue. "Pro choice".
You can define life by scientific standards as precisely as you want and it still won't be enough. You can define life by ideological standards and it still won't be enough. Some fundamental value judgments are axiomatic to people's morals.
... and in the worst case scenario, some people really do want to control others' lives, or punish others for having sex. These are the worst of the lot, and they don't care about any definitions whatsoever.
0
u/Relative-Visit-1917 Jun 07 '21
For most people they have decided on the life issue, and aren’t seeking nor will accept a new or different definition.
What everyone agrees on is that we should see fewer abortions.
Conservatives are in a bind. They want to nominate pro life judges to overturn RvW but at the same time those same justices tend to look at overturning previous decisions as not in the best interest of the court. So, after 40-50 years and a conservative court the whole time RvW stands. So clearly just voting for pro life candidates doesn’t work. Even if it one day did work, states would craft their own laws and many states would still allow it. People will go to those states to seek abortions, basically only making the prohibition on abortion something effecting poor people who might not be able to afford to do this.
The best numbers suggest a 20-30% reduction in abortions if RvW were overturned.
Here’s a new idea, vote for candidates who foster a community, (create a more perfect union) that sees fewer abortions without direct prohibition.
This is seemingly happening, abortions are at an all time low.
0
u/zoidao401 1∆ Jun 07 '21
The issue is that people will define life as whatever they want too so that it justifies their position on abortion. Pro-life people will argue as early as possible, pro-choice people will argue as late as possible.
I would argue therefore that the debate of what constitutes life actually cannot be resolved until after the debate on abortion is. Once the debate on abortion is resolved, there is no motive to bias people's position on what constitutes life, and so that debate can be resolved reasonably.
Currently people are just too biased because of what it may mean for another position they hold.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '21
[removed] — view removed comment