4 ms·

I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an

I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby - hence IUD is not acceptable contraception method. Condom is though. Or anything else which prevents sperm from meeting an egg.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby This is a pretty common opinion among anti-choice people. One of the many divides in views on abortion is between people who believe life begins at birth vs. before birth, with a significant number of the latter believing life begins at conception. EDIT: Obviously views on abortion are complicated and vary widely. All I'm saying is that it's really not hard to find people who will tell you life begins at conception (and by that logic, believe that killing a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby).
- benjohnson 11y ago
  From what I've seen, people with a pro-choice viewpoint generally acknowledge that life biologically begins at conception. The split in viewpoints, as I understand it, is that early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Those egg and sperm cells are quite alive before they meet.
    - jonah 11y ago
      However neither carries a full copy of a person's DNA. They're only "alive" in that they're biological.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    FWIW, from any of these debates I've read on reddit at least, I've encountered almost no pro-choice people who believe life begins at conception. The party line seems to be that it is a zygote until birth - well, of course they'd never state it in such clear terms as that, instead you get any variety of mental gymnastics to avoid the question, but one thing they are absolutely certain about is, it is not a life.
    - amake 11y ago
      "Life" vs "(viable) human life". Not the same thing.
      - refurb 11y ago
        A 26 week old fetus is viable, but you can still abort it.
        amake 11y ago
        I think most people would say that "viable only with massive medical intervention" is not what they mean by "viable" in this context.
        refurb 11y ago
        There are plenty of full term babies that need "massive medical intervention". Are they viable?
        mistermann 11y ago
        They are not, and using the exact same logic advocated by the the pro-choice camp, there should be no moral issues with not providing the necessary medical support for the baby to survive. Taken at their word, if it is not self-sufficient, it is not a life.
        mistermann 11y ago
        I'm more than willing to admit that if the baby is removed from the womb too early, it will not survive, so in that sense it is "not viable". What bothers me is most (if not all, in my experience) pro-choice advocates refuse to even acknowledge the fact that non-intervention will result in a human being successfully born in the vast majority of scenarios. To me it is intellectually dishonest.
  - jonah 11y ago
    Interesting. Most of the people I hear supporting abortion won't acknowledge that it's a life that's being ended. Whether they don't know or just won't admit it varies by person.
  - amake 11y ago
    early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development The usual condition as I understand it is that it must be a "viable human life" to merit protection. All sorts of things can go wrong, such as miscarriage, so it's not a viable human life until it's born.
- nickff 11y ago
  Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. >"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. I don't really like the term 'anti-choice', but 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life). 'pro/anti-abortion' are problematic for similar reasons. So while I'd like to use an uncontended term, I really don't know of one.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Your opponents are of a similar mind. Consider what happens when I switch the 'life' and 'choice' in your comment. >I don't really like the term 'anti-life', but 'pro-choice' is also an epithet that many pro-life people dislike (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice). Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it.
      - chimeracoder 11y ago
        > Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it. It fails by parity of reasoning. So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described? > Your opponents are of a similar mind. Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter.
        11y ago
- steve19 11y ago
  I don't think that is the main divide. The divide would be life at contraception vs. life at some point in time during the pregnancy/fetus development. Where that line is seems to differ from country to country.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    No the main divide is over who controls women's sexuality. Full stop.
  - Abraln 11y ago
    Agreed which is why the issue gets so complicated. Drawing moral lines is tricky. I can't think of anyone I have met who has argued that an abortion 24 hours before the birth would occur naturally is morally acceptable. It will be interesting to see how the debate changes as technology advances. If x years from now doctors are able to move a 2nd or even 1st trimester fetus into an artificial womb instead of aborting it, should abortions still be legal? What if it is more expensive/uncomfortable for the woman? Should the fetus then have full human rights once separated from its mother? All deep and interesting questions.
- dennisgorelik 11y ago
  > among anti-choice people Unless you want to be called "anti-life" it's better to use traditional names for such groups: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
steve19 11y ago
IUD prevent fertilization, they may also prevent implantation but this is only likely to happen if it has been inserted after sex.
jbapple 11y ago
> his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. There is some evidence that a large percentage (30-75%) of all fertilized eggs do not implant. If every one of those was a human life, your friend might consider this an extremely large public health problem, and perhaps of greater significance than poverty, war, and plagues.

chimeracoder 11y ago

> I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby This is a pretty common opinion among anti-choice people. One of the many divides in views on abortion is between people who believe life begins at birth vs. before birth, with a significant number of the latter believing life begins at conception. EDIT: Obviously views on abortion are complicated and vary widely. All I'm saying is that it's really not hard to find people who will tell you life begins at conception (and by that logic, believe that killing a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby).

benjohnson 11y ago
From what I've seen, people with a pro-choice viewpoint generally acknowledge that life biologically begins at conception. The split in viewpoints, as I understand it, is that early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Those egg and sperm cells are quite alive before they meet.
  - jonah 11y ago
    However neither carries a full copy of a person's DNA. They're only "alive" in that they're biological.
- mistermann 11y ago
  FWIW, from any of these debates I've read on reddit at least, I've encountered almost no pro-choice people who believe life begins at conception. The party line seems to be that it is a zygote until birth - well, of course they'd never state it in such clear terms as that, instead you get any variety of mental gymnastics to avoid the question, but one thing they are absolutely certain about is, it is not a life.
  - amake 11y ago
    "Life" vs "(viable) human life". Not the same thing.
    - refurb 11y ago
      A 26 week old fetus is viable, but you can still abort it.
      - amake 11y ago
        I think most people would say that "viable only with massive medical intervention" is not what they mean by "viable" in this context.
        refurb 11y ago
        There are plenty of full term babies that need "massive medical intervention". Are they viable?
        mistermann 11y ago
        They are not, and using the exact same logic advocated by the the pro-choice camp, there should be no moral issues with not providing the necessary medical support for the baby to survive. Taken at their word, if it is not self-sufficient, it is not a life.
        mistermann 11y ago
        I'm more than willing to admit that if the baby is removed from the womb too early, it will not survive, so in that sense it is "not viable". What bothers me is most (if not all, in my experience) pro-choice advocates refuse to even acknowledge the fact that non-intervention will result in a human being successfully born in the vast majority of scenarios. To me it is intellectually dishonest.
- jonah 11y ago
  Interesting. Most of the people I hear supporting abortion won't acknowledge that it's a life that's being ended. Whether they don't know or just won't admit it varies by person.
- amake 11y ago
  early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development The usual condition as I understand it is that it must be a "viable human life" to merit protection. All sorts of things can go wrong, such as miscarriage, so it's not a viable human life until it's born.
nickff 11y ago
Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. >"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'. I don't really like the term 'anti-choice', but 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life). 'pro/anti-abortion' are problematic for similar reasons. So while I'd like to use an uncontended term, I really don't know of one.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Your opponents are of a similar mind. Consider what happens when I switch the 'life' and 'choice' in your comment. >I don't really like the term 'anti-life', but 'pro-choice' is also an epithet that many pro-life people dislike (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice). Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it. It fails by parity of reasoning. So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described? > Your opponents are of a similar mind. Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter.
      - 11y ago
steve19 11y ago
I don't think that is the main divide. The divide would be life at contraception vs. life at some point in time during the pregnancy/fetus development. Where that line is seems to differ from country to country.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  No the main divide is over who controls women's sexuality. Full stop.
- Abraln 11y ago
  Agreed which is why the issue gets so complicated. Drawing moral lines is tricky. I can't think of anyone I have met who has argued that an abortion 24 hours before the birth would occur naturally is morally acceptable. It will be interesting to see how the debate changes as technology advances. If x years from now doctors are able to move a 2nd or even 1st trimester fetus into an artificial womb instead of aborting it, should abortions still be legal? What if it is more expensive/uncomfortable for the woman? Should the fetus then have full human rights once separated from its mother? All deep and interesting questions.
dennisgorelik 11y ago
> among anti-choice people Unless you want to be called "anti-life" it's better to use traditional names for such groups: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

steve19 11y ago

IUD prevent fertilization, they may also prevent implantation but this is only likely to happen if it has been inserted after sex.

jbapple 11y ago

> his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. There is some evidence that a large percentage (30-75%) of all fertilized eggs do not implant. If every one of those was a human life, your friend might consider this an extremely large public health problem, and perhaps of greater significance than poverty, war, and plagues.