Interested if others see this paradox — Rank Amateur

I do not see a paradox, and I don't see an obvious connection either. The cause of me not seeing what you find glaringly obvious likely has something to do with how I define "person": I don't consider a non-viable fetus to be a person. Potential, yes; actual, no. Very, very few viable near-term fetuses are aborted.

I also don't think of the just-conceived egg/sperm combo as a person, or an ensouled being. When does a fetus become a person? When the first-cry infant is held in the arms of his or her parents, personhood has been achieved.

Hundreds of thousands of species will take the brunt of climate change. Humans are but one of the many, though we have guilt on top of potential extinction. It is by our fault, by our most grievous fault.

are they more or less human beings than the future human beings that climate change is concerned about? Are fertilized eggs today, less valuable than possible fertilized some time in the future?

This is an obvious attempt to make headway on the dead issue of abortion using the live issue of climate change. Poor stuff.

I also don't think of the just-conceived egg/sperm combo as a person, or an ensouled being. When does a fetus become a person? When the first-cry infant is held in the arms of his or her parents, personhood has been achieved. — Bitter Crank

This is my point on the tension between science and non science on these two issues and how many individuals will value science on one and social on another. The biology on abortion is clear. A fetus is 100% human, and 100% alive. Personhood and rights therefore accorded are an argument outside science.

I disagree that these issues are comparable. Climate change is an issue about preserving the environment so we can sustain our civalisations. The abortion debate is about how we value the autonomy of people's choices, mistakes and lives. Both issues are far too complex to be summed up as you have.

that is in your head, not mine. I would prefer this not be about abortion per se, but about what I see as the similarities in the issues and way individuals value different things depending on the issue.

I disagree that these issues are comparable. Climate change is an issue about preserving the environment so we can sustain our civalisations. The abortion debate is about how we value the autonomy of people's choices, mistakes and lives. Both issues are far too complex to be summed up as you have. — SnowyChainsaw

I see both about a tension between human life, and some other thing of value.

Is there any reason for us to think that you seek these similarities for anything more than rhetorical purposes?

Real people are already impacted by climate change - and it will get worse. That is not similar to the impact of abortion on foetal tissue.

What I find interesting is in many cases an individual would make an argument based on science for climate change against a social, financial argument. And make a social argument for abortion against the science. I also find it interesting that the final objective of those who favor climate change, is ultimately about saving future lives, And at the same time can find justification to devalue future human lives in the cases of abortion.

I would propose a consistent set of values should be either pro climate change and anti abortion or anti climate change and pro abortion, but I would further propose that is not the case.

@Rank Amateur

I see both about a tension between human life, and some other thing of value.

This can be said about almost any issue and this over simplification is probably why you think people change their values depending on the issue. Neither issue calls on the same principles.

Climate change is an issue of systemic responsibility and the discussion is between funding for scientific advancement vs spending elsewhere depending on collective principles.
Abortion is an issue of individual autonomy and whether a person should be responsible for their actions and mistakes as well as how to define life.

@Rank Amateur

What I find interesting is in many cases an individual would make an argument based on science for climate change against a social, financial argument. And make a social argument for abortion against the science. I also find it interesting that the final objective of those who favor climate change, is ultimately about saving future lives, And at the same time can find justification to devalue future human lives in the cases of abortion

This is because they are very different issues.

This is because they are very different issues. — SnowyChainsaw

I think that could be it. Certainly people can prioritize their values differently depending on the issue. It could also be an after the fact justification. It would depend a great deal on how conscious they were or were not on the variability of the application of their values.

Sure, I can agree with that for the most part. But I still feel it assumes that there is a conflict between values in the context of discussing these two issues, which is just not the case.

Most people, at least in my experience, are not even aware that they have specific, definable values let alone consider how best to apply them, so it is almost certain they resort to "after the fact justification" when considering political issues. But even if they are the values surrounding these issues do not contradict each other. Can you demonstrate that there is and cite the specific principles that contradict?

Sure, I can agree with that for the most part. But I still feel it assumes that there is a conflict between values in the context of discussing these two issues, which is just not the case. — SnowyChainsaw

Which is not the case because. . .

Because they do not question the same principles.

Because they do not question the same principles. — SnowyChainsaw

Respectfully disagree. Both climate change and abortion are about value of future lives. And many are for future lives on one issue and against on the other. Both climate change and abortion pit science against social issues. Many in one case value science in one case and social issues in the other.

Again my point is not is their a right or wrong, it is about an inconsistent application of values depending on the issue. So the chicken and egg question does ones values make ones position, or does one fit ones values into the position.

Both climate change and abortion pit science against social issues.

One is a science issue, the other is a social issue. Neither pits one against the other.

Tell you what, I'll give my take on these two issues and you can point out the contradiction.

On climate change:
The industrialisation and, by extension, energy consumption of modern civilisation is causing massive damage to the environment which threatens the livelihoods of future generations. However, we cannot just reverse industrialisation since our economies and daily lives depend on it so much so we need to invest in alternative sources of energy and goods that are more efficient and sustainable.
It is an issue of the correct allocation of our resources.

On abortion:
It is human nature that people make mistakes and that can lead to "unplanned" pregnancies. In some cases it is reasonable to allow the parent to terminate the pregnancy if they are not in a position to properly care for a child. This should be done in an individual bases depending on a number of factors. It is also important to consider the life of the child and so we, as a society and potential parents, should better educate our children on the implications of pregnancy in a way that prepare them for one without terrifying them into never having intercourse. In order to prevent abuse of this system we should define when it is too late to terminate the pregnancy and the parents involved should pay at least something towards the cost of the procedure.
It is an issue of how to correctly deal with an individual's actions within society.

Summary:
We should do something about climate change. I am pro-abortion, but it should be situational.

Both issues are for more complex then this but I am trying to be brief.

One is a science issue, the other is a social issue. Neither pits one against the other.

I take this back. Science is not a value nor a principle. It is simply a method by which we make discoveries and therefore there is no such thing as a "Science Issue".
My mistake.

The biology on abortion is clear. A fetus is 100% human, and 100% alive. — Rank Amateur

Yes, of course. So is your liver 100% human and 100% alive. What else would a fetus be, but human and alive?

Personhood and rights therefore accorded are an argument outside science. — Rank Amateur

Yes, and that doesn't make it less important. And whether a fetus is viable or not lies in the field of science. A 5 month fetus is not viable, even with great neonatal intensive care. At 24 weeks it is viable with very poor prospects. 28 or 32 weeks, much better odds for a healthy start on life. 9 months -- best.

I do not consider abortion a procedure of moral indifference -- like having a bone spur removed. It is clearly a decision freighted with meaning for the individuals involved. It's a "might have been" that can never be answered. That's true about just about any decision. I want people to be able to make the decision to bear or not bear a child to be made on the merits of the parents' case, not on religious doctrine that once fertilized an egg is a person.

Many people make a horrendous mess of their children's lives. If you aren't able to be a good parent, then forego the experience, or wait until you are able.

The only connection I see is having an abortion because the world is going to shit because of climate change and you want to spare a possible child the consequences of climate change.

I agree with BitterCrank's position, and don't see how the science is being distorted in the case of abortions by those who are concerned about climate change, or vice versa.

Now, a possible connection between the two issues is that abortion can keep the population down, which can also ease the effects of climate change due to human activity. Yet, that is not a connection made in the opening post.

Yes, and that doesn't make it less important. And whether a fetus is viable or not lies in the field of science. — Bitter Crank

agree - however using viability as a criteria for person hood is outside science.

Again - not interested in an argument on the morality of abortion. Interested in how individuals vary what they say they value based on the issue.

Yes, and that doesn't make it less important. And whether a fetus is viable or not lies in the field of science.
— Bitter Crank

agree - however using viability as a criteria for person hood is outside science. — Rank Amateur

this is a very good example of what I mean - Bitter is way way too smart not to see the difference in using science as a tool to identify when a fetus is viable outside the womb , and using viability as a criteria for personhood - but often the answer we want colors how we see things - causes blind spots

but often the answer we want colors how we see things - causes blind spots — Rank Amateur

That is one of several achilles heels we have. "Seeing is believing" also works the other way: "believing is seeing". What we believe, wish, want, fear, dread, etc. can (at times) determine what we actually "see". It isn't a flaw; it's a feature. If we are on top of things, we can be aware that our wishes are guiding our perception, but it's hard work to be on top of everything all the time.

agree - thanks

I see no paradox either. Abortion hinges upon a metaphysical principle: what constitutes an individual human life; no amount of empirical analysis can provide a definitive answer. On the other hand, climate change is entirely an epistemic issues associated with propositions such as:

There is global warming (i.e. global temperatures are, and have been, trending hotter)
Global warming will negatively effect humans
Human activity is contributing materially to global warming
Modifying human activity can mitigate global warming sufficiently to avoid or significantly reduce the negative impact
Benefits (mitigating the negative impacts) outweigh the cost of modifying human activity.

Each of these can (in principle) be analyzed empirically.

I see no paradox either. Abortion hinges upon a metaphysical principle: what constitutes an individual human life; no amount of empirical analysis can provide a definitive answer. On the other hand, climate change is entirely an epistemic issues associated with propositions such as — Relativist

again - kind of making my point - to some what constitutes individual human life is not metaphysical at all - it is completely biological.

and to some, what to do about climate change is non - scientific but political social. -

and both issues involve putting some value on future lives -

My point was and is, to some - thinking you would fit in this category -

Value the human lives at risk from global warming more than the future lives at risk from abortion
value science highly in for global warming, and dismiss the science in abortion
value metaphysics in abortion and discount it in global warming

again not making a moral argument either for or against either issue - just highlighting how easily we all can change the criteria we value in one issue to the next - IMO dependent on the answer we want to defend.

The answer often comes first, and we fit the justification in. And our values are malleable .

"
"The answer often comes first, and we fit the justification in. And our values are malleable"

That is an unfortunate fact of human nature, and it is well manifested in political discourse. Nevertheless, the paradox is in the eye of the beholder. To a "global warming denier" (I hate that term) there is no paradox because they've convinced themselves global warming is false (e.g. it's a Chines hoax, as our beloved leader has said). Pro-lifers convince themselves a fetus is not an individual human life valued equally with that of a mother - so again, no paradox.

Your judgment that there's a paradox depends on treating fetuses as individual human lives and treating global warming as factual.

not my point - my point is one individual - can value science very highly in the case of global warming and not very much at all in the case of abortion, and visa versa. This same individual can highly value future human lives in the case of global warming and not in abortion, and visa versa.

So can this person actually say they value science over metaphysics, or vise versa, or say in any real way how much they value future human lives.

Many people hold positions on these 2 issues, and value science in one, and discount it in another - and value future lives in one, and discount them in other - that is paradoxical if you believe ones values should be constant by definition. I hold very few people hold their values constant -

Your judgment that there's a paradox depends on treating fetuses as individual human lives and treating global warming as factual. — Relativist

my paradox has absolutely nothing at all to do with the position of either issue - the paradox remains on both sides of the issues.

The paradox is absent only for those who are pro life and pro climate change, and for those who are pro choice and anti climate change.