Discussion Abortion Is Evil

[Lux]

And yeah I agree; if I, 96% of Biologists, & the majority of institutions have come to the consensus that Human Life begins at conception and you dont for some reason thats alright.

My phrasing was regarding personhood but I think the same difference in premises applies.

And if you also dont affirm that all human life is equally & inherently valuable thats alright. I'm not gonna press you to justify something like that

Yeah I definitely don't affirm this jfl. This is pillar where our worldviews differ significantly. It is self evident to me that the life of a 80 iq fent addict who molested some kid and can't get a job is not equally precious to some politician's kid.

I'll accept your premise that human life begins at fertilization for the sake of progressing the argument.

Given this I would say the real crux of our difference here is I believe ending a human life can be ethically acceptable if the human is not a person. Especially given the majority of human life (75%) already ends without ever reaching personhood, as we established. With so much ending of life without ever achieving personhood, the value of a human life by this definition would become much less.
Kind of like littering on a planet made of trash. The intention of the action looses meaning in a context where the outcome is already overwhelming and common.
Especially if you can contrast this with a different action like the killing of a person which is no longer a parallel process.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Yeah I definitely don't affirm this jfl. This is pillar where our worldviews differ significantly. It is self evident to me that the life of a 80 iq fent addict who molested some kid and can't get a job is not equally precious to some politician's kid.

The only difference I can see here is Utility. Regardless of the utility you present to a given society your still as human.
A cow can present more utility than a guy wheelchair in the fact that it can plow fields, fertilize fields, produce milk that we drink, or just give us meat to eat.
The guy in the wheelchair is gonna be way more valuable regardless just for the simple fact of being human.

I'll accept your premise that human life begins at fertilization for the sake of progressing the argument.
Given this I would say the real crux of our difference here is I believe ending a human life can be ethically acceptable if the human is not a person. Especially given the majority of human life (75%) already ends without ever reaching personhood, as we established. With so much ending of life without ever achieving personhood, the value of a human life by this definition would become much less. Kind of like littering on a planet made of trash. The intention of the action looses meaning in a context where the outcome is already overwhelming and common.
Especially if you can contrast this with a different action like the killing of a person which is no longer a parallel process.

I think I wrote about this somewhere else so Im just gonna copy paste what I said, this is on Value

"Being simply Human gives you inherent value. Yet it is in conjunct with sentience & conscious experience of course. Not equal, just in conjuct
Human Identity > Consciousness >= Sentience/Sapience

Am I going to give a Fetus - a living member of the Human species Moral value despite not being conscious or having a (albeit) "low level" of sentience? Yes, as I give a person in comotose them same ( MVS or PVS ); or a person of equivalent sentience or cognitive ability/structure; or one even in death the same. ( Desecration of graves/burials is Immoral. )
Well, not the SAME in Death (Not worth as much as a human life) ; But you understand I'd still morally value this over a living animal. "

 

[Foidkiller]

( Desecration of graves/burials is Immoral. )

depends what you mean
obviously a grave is someone's property, you can't just damage it
but if a person who nobody knows or has any ties to, dies on the street, and you're the first to find him, then this corpse becomes your property (if you wish to claim it) and you're in your right to sell burgers made out of it. I think that incentivizes people finding missing people more to begin with.

 

[Lux]

The only difference I can see here is Utility. Regardless of the utility you present to a given society your still as human.
A cow can present more utility than a guy wheelchair in the fact that it can plow fields, fertilize fields, produce milk that we drink, or just give us meat to eat.
The guy in the wheelchair is gonna be way more valuable regardless just for the simple fact of being human.

I think I wrote about this somewhere else so Im just gonna copy paste what I said, this is on Value

"Being simply Human gives you inherent value. Yet it is in conjunct with sentience & conscious experience of course. Not equal, just in conjuct
Human Identity > Consciousness >= Sentience/Sapience

Am I going to give a Fetus - a living member of the Human species Moral value despite not being conscious or having a (albeit) "low level" of sentience? Yes, as I give a person in comotose them same ( MVS or PVS ); or a person of equivalent sentience or cognitive ability/structure; or one even in death the same. ( Desecration of graves/burials is Immoral. )
Well, not the SAME in Death (Not worth as much as a human life) ; But you understand I'd still morally value this over a living animal. "

This just doesn't really work formally. I know your probably not familiar with PL, maybe run this though chat so it can break it down.
Let:
H(x): x is Human
C(x): x is Conscious
S(x): x is Sentient
V(x): x has Moral Value

Your claim as I understand it:
1. Being human gives inherent value.
H(x)→V(x)
2. Moral value exists in conjunction with consciousness/sentience.
V(x)↔(H(x)∧(C(x)∨S(x)))

The problem arrises when: Take an embryo a where H(a) is true and C(a), S(a) are false.

From (1): V(a) (since H(a))
From (2): V(a)→(C(a)∨S(a))
Contradiction, because ¬C(a), ¬S(a).

∴ The argument is inconsistent. mainly because of your use of conjunction.

If you wanted to make the arguement work formally you would have to say something like “Being human gives you inherent value, alongside consciousness and sentience,” which separates their relationships a bit but formally simplifies your assertion to a large degree.

Then the following problem is if I can find an example of a human being without inherent value (which may be a matter of interpretation to some degree) the whole argument crumbles. Such an example could be a hypothetical cloned human shell for the purposes of organ harvesting without a brain or consciousness.

 

[spooky_Heejin]

Over 73 million babies a year are killed by abortion. I don't know how anyone can believe in god when this is happening.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

This just doesn't really work formally. I know your probably not familiar with PL, maybe run this though chat so it can break it down.
Let:
H(x): x is Human
C(x): x is Conscious
S(x): x is Sentient
V(x): x has Moral Value

Your claim as I understand it:
1. Being human gives inherent value.
H(x)→V(x)
2. Moral value exists in conjunction with consciousness/sentience.
V(x)↔(H(x)∧(C(x)∨S(x)))

The problem arrises when: Take an embryo a where H(a) is true and C(a), S(a) are false.

From (1): V(a) (since H(a))
From (2): V(a)→(C(a)∨S(a))
Contradiction, because ¬C(a), ¬S(a).

∴ The argument is inconsistent. mainly because of your use of conjunction.

If you wanted to make the arguement work formally you would have to say something like “Being human gives you inherent value, alongside consciousness and sentience,” which separates their relationships a bit but formally simplifies your assertion to a large degree.

Ah okay lets go along with that then. Conjunct was the wrong word

Then the following problem is if I can find an example of a human being without inherent value (which may be a matter of interpretation to some degree) the whole argument crumbles. Such an example could be a hypothetical cloned human shell for the purposes of organ harvesting without a brain or consciousness.

Not really. Manmade or Artificial Organs dont need a "shell" or something to be made. But if they did they wouldnt be alive, just a body.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Over 73 million babies a year are killed by abortion. I don't know how anyone can believe in god when this is happening.

"If God why bad thing Happen."
Abortion happens because of Narcy Foids that have not a single ounce of critical thinking, rational, or regard for human life. And their cuckhold husbands & boyfriends.
And the incentive from Jews of course.

 

[Lux]

High effort thread tbh.

 

[newsincerity]

"If God why bad thing Happen."
Abortion happens because of Narcy Foids that have not a single ounce of critical thinking, rational, or regard for human life. And their cuckhold husbands & boyfriends.
And the incentive from Jews of course.

feminism and AoC
atheism and science
Society is set up to produce whores and losers

 

[Foidkiller]

atheism

is a fact.

science

is a thing that you do, not a religion that you believe in, though a lot got that mixed up.

AoC

Age of Consent?

Society is set up to produce whores and losers

water is wet. But it's again, mostly food producing less attractive men, which leads to the current situation, not "brainwashing" or some other soy "socioeconomic" factor

 

[newsincerity]

is a fact.

people don't work on truth we're religious creatures

is a thing that you do, not a religion that you believe in, though a lot got that mixed up.

same thing

Age of Consent?

yes

 

[Foidkiller]

people don't work on truth we're religious creatures

same thing

so you say this in the same sentence, then I don't even know what to tell you, I agree obviously with the first statement in a technicality since putting it like that can make us look weak and pathetic from an outsider perspective. But the second makes it seem like you never 'got it' to begin with. Science is, again, about doing something, in this case being skeptical, and not something you believe in, which is what a lot of people got wrong.

 

[newsincerity]

so you say this in the same sentence, then I don't even know what to tell you, I agree obviously with the first statement in a technicality since putting it like that can make us look weak and pathetic from an outsider perspective. But the second makes it seem like you never 'got it' to begin with. Science is, again, about doing something, in this case being skeptical, and not something you believe in, which is what a lot of people got wrong.

people aren't scientists or researchers we rely on others and believe stuff or if we try to udnerstand believe in credibility of hard to verify for us evidence and what not
when was the last time you reproduced experiment or observed DNA under the microscope
You have no idea how your cell phone works
don't be ridiculous

 

[Foidkiller]

people aren't scientists or researchers we rely on others and believe stuff or if we try to udnerstand believe in credibility of hard to verify for us evidence and what not

besides switching goal posts in the same sentence which gave me a stroke trying to read it through. again, science is all about not believing.

when was the last time you reproduced experiment or observed DNA under the microscope

muh "science is when uhh dna microscope or something"
How frustrating it is that you don't realize the contradicting nature of your own statement. Science is about exactly the opposite of whimsical fee-fees and preconceived notions that every person has on a subjective level, and that's all what you blurted out stands for.

You have no idea how your cell phone works

If that's true, then admitting it is the first step in doing science. However, the general picture about it is not hard to grasp whatsoever.

don't be ridiculous

You resort to sophistry in the same post trying to defend statements you didn't put much thought into, which doesn't look like they've gotten more credit by doing that.