↪Antinatalist my position is that I am for abortion according to my moral principles, but if we take the logical proposition that a zygote cannot be killed because she does not feel anything or because she is not a reasonable person, then we logically assume that people with the syndrome can be killed down because he is not a reasonable person or we can kill sleeping people because they do not feel anything, yes we can say that a person will wake up, but then he will cease to be a sleeping person with the same condition a person can be born, it is important to note that only with the fusion of a sperm and an egg can to be born a person and of course separately they do not represent human life, which is understandable. — evtifron
I am deeply convinced that the problem of abortion is a language problem, because the concept of a person is a humanistic concept and we cannot trace the moment of its origin, but if we take the proposition that you cannot kill a person at one stage, then you cannot kill him at another. but this only concerns the logical sequence in the real world, there are various situations when an abortion is necessary and I support this, and of course for me, according to my moral convictions, the death of a person who was born is much worse than the death of a zygote — evtifron
unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances?
— tim wood
To kill her baby, anytime while it's in her body, any way she chooses, under any circumstances. — James Riley
But this seems to assign a value to the passage from mother's body to world that is only arbitrary. — tim wood
Point! But it seems to me incomplete.Before = her. After = whatever. — James Riley
Question re the range: a branded - thereby a fast-fish - cow drops an unbranded calf. Is it a loose-fish on the instant it hits the ground? (Moby Dick, chap. 89, "Fast fish and loose fish.") — tim wood
Yours the notion that personhood starts at separation, — tim wood
the problem is not solved within Procrustean parameters — tim wood
↪Antinatalist then what are we killing? — evtifron
↪Antinatalist a fetus is sentient and is a human being, what are you talking about? Once there is a conception, there is a human being. If nobody terminates (that's the word, not interrupt) the pregnancy, that fertilized ovum is going to fully develop, that means that the whole potentiality of development is part of its essence. — Alexandros
Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. — Alexandros
No, it doesn't. Suppose that there was only one man left alive, and he was so brain-damaged that he could never feel anything again. It would not matter to him if he died. His death would only matter to him if he could somehow regain sentience and start to feel again. And of course, since he's the last man left alive, it can't matter to anyone else either. So the death of such a man would not matter at all, because there is no-one for it to matter to; it would therefore have no value, positive or negative. This shows that human life and death only matter, only have value, insofar as sentience is involved. It is sentience that confers value, and without sentience, there is no value. Human life in itself has no value; it only acquires value where there is sentience.A human life has a moral value in its essence. — Alexandros
If the fact that two people who were nearly aborted turned out to be happy is a good argument against abortion, then presumably the fact that a lot of people who were not aborted turned out to be unhappy is a good argument for abortion.I know two people who were almost aborted because of those trends of pseudo philosophy and pseudo science. And they are happy to be alive. — Alexandros
↪Antinatalist the problem is that, in your opinion, a person will be human when he is intelligent and experiencing emotions, but who told you that? how to empirically trace the moment when a person becomes a person? the answer is obvious in no way can it be traced, one way or another I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth? and a person develops after his birth for a huge amount of time, a person does not become a person after birth who determines this and how? magically? I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron
I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron
The first and last statements here are incompatible. If morality exists only in human consciousness, then there are no objective moral truths; but if the value of human life is morally objective, then there ARE objective moral truths. You can't hold both positions, they are contradictory.Morality exists only in human consciousness. Therefore in your example there is no moral subject. Ergo, it proves nothing. Next point, the value of human life is morally objective. — Alexandros
Well, as I've said, I disagree. My example of the last man alive is an argument to support my position. You've given me no arguments to support yours, only assertions.That's the basis of Morality.
They weren't meant to be formal arguments, they are simply facts which shed some light on the reasons why people claim that human life is something special.Next points you've written are not even arguments
Do you think it is immoral to beat a dog for your own amusement? If you don't, then your view is immoral. If you do, then you hold a moral view which does not imply the value of human life.It's easy, Morality implies the value of human life objectively.
Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. That is to say, it's a human life that cell clump. If I take cells from my skin, it's not going to become a person. Don't try to evade moral acts. You are nobody to judge who has to be born. There is something called responsibility of moral acts — Alexandros
↪Antinatalist no, that's called amoral. If you want to change meaning and twist and pervert concepts, go ahead, there are persons who say tge earth is flat and 2 plus 2 not really four. Those have a name too. Study biology — Alexandros
and there is no compelling state interest in keeping babies alive, beyond the creation of new tax payers. — James Riley
integrity of woman's body applies only at life risks. — Alexandros
The axiom is simple, you cannot kill another human life. That's criminal. — Alexandros
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.