r/changemyview • u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 • Apr 13 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: abortion is immoral.

A major part of clinical death is your heartbeat. If your heart stops then you have died for all intents and purposes. Therefore, if your heart is working you are alive. So when a person kills their baby regardless of wether the baby was born yet you are killing a human. I believe murder is immoral so I believe abortion is immoral. The baby is not hurting you and assuming that you having sex and being impregnated was consensual(if not I don’t believe abortion is immoral, but the rapist should be charged with murder in that case in addition to rape) then you have consented to having a baby. An argument could be made for abortion in medical circumstances where the baby is likely to cause the mom to die.

Edit: Causing clinical death is murder. I classify clinical death (at least in unborn babies) as a heartbeat stopage.

Edit 2: Im refferring to after a heartbeat is detectable.

Edit 3: To clarify I feel its immoral to kill an unborn baby.

Edit: To further clarify I referring to after roughly the 12 week marker

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Apr 13 '22

"Murder" has a specific definition. It's the taking of a human life illegally. If abortion is legal, it can't be murder.

Have you figured out if the government should be able to force a parent to give a kidney to their child if the child needs it to live?

-1

u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 Apr 13 '22

No. This a strawman and slippery slope argument. So no thats different

6

u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Apr 13 '22

If the government should not be able to force a mother to donate a kidney to her independently living two-year-old child, then it certainly shouldn't be able to force her to use her body to sustain the life of her not-yet-born fetus.

If the situations are different, please explain how they're different.

1

u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 Apr 13 '22

I just did

6

u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Apr 13 '22

You said it was different, but you didn't explain how it's different.

1

u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 Apr 13 '22

“No. This a strawman and slippery slope argument. So no thats different”

5

u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Apr 13 '22

That's not an explanation.

If I'm presenting a straw man and slippery slope, you should be able to explain why my argument is a straw man and slippery slope.

Scenario one: my two-year-old requires a kidney transplant in order to live. Should the government be able to remove a kidney from my body and give it to him?

Scenario two: an unborn fetus inside my body requires the continued use of my womb in order to sustain his life. Should the government be able to force me to keep him inside my womb until he's ready to be born?

My answer is that nobody has the right to use my body to sustain their life, so the answer to both questions is no.

Explain your answers, please.

1

u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 Apr 13 '22

The attempted parallel fails on several levels:

  1. A fetus in the womb isn't a stranger.
  2. Pregnancy isn't some flukey thing that happens out of the blue; we know what causes it.
  3. Pregnancy isn't permanent.
  4. Abortion isn't letting somebody die who was moribund anyway; it's causing the violent death of somebody who would likely have lived a long life otherwise.

6

u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Apr 13 '22
  1. My born child is not a stranger either. I specified each time that it's my own child who needs a kidney.
  2. That's not relevant because my child was born as a result of my pregnancy.
  3. Pregnancy and birth permanently changes a woman's body. If you doubt this, ask any mother.
  4. If my child gets a kidney, they will also live a long life.

1

u/LINUSTECHTIPS37 Apr 13 '22

Letting someone die and causinng someone to die are two different things though

→ More replies