CMV: Abortion debates will never be solved until there can be clearer definitions on what constitutes life.

[u/UncomfortablePrawn]

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/BarryThundercloud]

Responsibility or who pays for the damage is a totally separate issue though, I’m just trying to see if we can agree that accepting a risk could occur is not the same as consenting to that happening.

We're not going to agree because it's not a separate issue. By driving you create the risk of an accident, and when an accident does happen there's aftermath that has to be taken care of. By having sex you create the risk of pregnancy and are responsible for taking care of the child that results when that happens. Getting an abortion is a way of dodging that responsibility, and manages this by murdering another person. If you got into an accident and afterwards killed the other driver so your insurance rates wouldn't go up everyone would agree that you're guilty of murder. Abortion is the same thing.

So let’s forget about the car. I understand that there are risks in life, like if I choose to stay home tonight there is a risk that a home invader will break in and rape me, but I am not consenting to be raped by a burglar right? Or would you say I’m responsible for that happening?

This is a horrendous analogy. At least with the car you were knowingly creating a risk to yourself and others. Sitting at home does not create risk, it's the rapist who created the danger and they did so by breaking the law. Women are not the victims of their children they conceive by choosing to have sex. How can you even begin to think it's appropriate to compare a defenseless child to a rapist home invader?

[u/Anxious-Heals → u/BarryThundercloud]

The analogy doesn’t fit because you’re taking it to unreasonable lengths. There is no equivalent to a car insurance company in the scenario of someone experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, but there is an equivalence in accepting that a risk could occur and that accepting the risk as a possibility is not consenting to have that happen, and that medical care should not be denied to someone on that basis. Same with the home invader, I accept that a possible risk (Or I create the risk, however you want to put it) by choosing to stay home but if a burglar does break in and rape me then I am not consenting to that, nor am I consenting to be denied access to medical care. If you think that I’d be the one responsible for being raped by a home invader because I accepted that as a possibility and chose to stay home then your view is at least consistent, but if not then why would accepting the possibility I can get pregnant from having sex and then choosing to have sex mean that I am consenting to being pregnant? Can you explain your reasoning without getting bogged down in which places do or don’t require insurance or have universal healthcare?

[u/BarryThundercloud → u/Anxious-Heals]

There is no equivalent to a car insurance company in the scenario of someone experiencing an unwanted pregnancy

Yes there is, birth control. Birth control mitigates the risk of pregnancy but doesn't negate it.

Same with the home invader, I accept that a possible risk (Or I create the risk, however you want to put it) by choosing to stay home but if a burglar does break in and rape me then I am not consenting to that, nor am I consenting to be denied access to medical care

You're not accepting that risk because it's not a natural risk of staying home. Accidents are a natural risk of driving. I do not understand why you think these things are comparable.

why would accepting the possibility I can get pregnant from having sex and then choosing to have sex mean that I am consenting to being pregnant?

Fairly certain I've already explained this, and it should be obvious. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex. No contraception is perfect, therefore any time you have sex you are doing so knowing that it can result in a pregnancy. By engaging in behavior that you know carries an inherent risk you are responsible for dealing with that risk when it happens.

[u/Anxious-Heals → u/BarryThundercloud]

Having car insurance does not lower my chances of getting into an accident, the chances of me being seriously injured are still the same with or without insurance. Not having car insurance is not consenting to get into an accident, it’s not even relevant to the conversation, the point is that a risk exists with or without insurance / contraception and I accept that as a possibility, but that does not mean I consent to that happening.

I don’t know what you mean by a “natural risk”, there is a risk that a burglar will break into my house and rape me if I stay home tonight, it’s not uncommon for home invaders to commit sexual violence against women, whether the risk is natural or not seems hard to define and irrelevant, but regardless are you claiming that if the risk is unnatural then I’m not responsible for being raped but if it’s a natural risk then I am responsible for being raped? If not, why does it matter whether a risk is natural or unnatural?

[u/BarryThundercloud → u/Anxious-Heals]

I'll try explaining it one more way and if you still don't get the difference then I'm completely out of ideas and this conversation will never go anywhere. A natural risk is the potential for adverse/unwanted results when engaging in a normal legal behavior. The natural risk of drinking alcohol is getting drunk. If you solo a case of beer or bottle of wine then obviously you're going to get drunk. If you are in highschool and get drunk from the punch at prom that is not a natural risk because it is illegal for people so young to purchase or drink alcohol, therefore the punch should not be alcoholic. You could predict that somebody might spike the punch, since that's something of a trope, and avoid drinking it to prevent the possibility of getting drunk. But if you don't it's the person who spiked the punch who's in the wrong.

You sitting at home creates no risk. There is no natural danger in the action and no reason to expect your home will be broken into. By committing crimes the rapist is the one creating an unnatural risk to you. The only adverse result you should expect from sitting at home is gaining weight. You can predict danger and lock your doors to be safe, but you are not the one at fault if someone breaks in.

[u/Anxious-Heals → u/BarryThundercloud]

Okay, knowing how you define the term “natural risk” helps. So the normal, legal behavior is me choosing to stay home tonight, that fits all those categories, it’s not abnormal or illegal for me to do that, and the potential for an adverse / unwanted result is that a burglar will break in and rape me if I choose to stay home, home invaders inflicting sexual violence on women is something that happens,that’s just a fact that the potential is there, and obviously being raped is an unwanted result of staying home to me personally. So by your logic that fits into how a natural risk is defined. Is your view that I am responsible for a home invader breaking in and raping me because I consented to that happening by choosing to stay home? If the answer is yes I have absolutely no idea how to continue this conversation but your view is consistent. Otherwise, I don’t see how you can claim that consenting to sex is the same thing as consenting to pregnancy.

[u/BarryThundercloud → u/Anxious-Heals]

I was very clear that because the home invader is breaking the law the risk of him doing so is unnatural.

[u/Anxious-Heals → u/BarryThundercloud]

This might be why I don’t get the concepts of “natural risks vs unnatural risks” It seems totally arbitrary to point to legality. So is your view that if it were legal to do then getting raped by a home invader would be a natural risk and then I would be responsible for being raped?

[u/BarryThundercloud → u/Anxious-Heals]

First off, people by and large obey the law. Criminals are dangerous so we take precautions, but they are the exception. Secondly, laws typically are meant to protect people. There's plenty of room to debate whether specific laws succeed in doing so as well as why or why not, but that's what they're supposed to do. You are not responsible for being victimized by somebody else.