The fact that if nothing is ever conceived, nothing exists which could be denoted. You can only denote something that exists, has existed, or will exist. See Russell, 'On Denoting' (https://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell(1905).pdf)↪Herg "because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything."
What makes you say that? — Xanatos
The life of a sentient being can have value both to that being and to other sentient beings. Thus my life has value to me, and also to my dog (because I feed him). By contrast, the life of a non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, can only have value to other sentient beings; because it is not sentient, it can have no value to itself, which is to say, it does not matter to the pre-sentient foetus what happens to it, or whether it continues to live or not.In my opinion sentience does not define life. But I think, most valuable and meaningful life is sentient. — Antinatalist
The life of a sentient being can have value both to that being and to other sentient beings. Thus my life has value to me, and also to my dog (because I feed him). By contrast, the life of a non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, can only have value to other sentient beings; because it is not sentient, it can have no value to itself, which is to say, it does not matter to the pre-sentient foetus what happens to it, or whether it continues to live or not.
The value of a being's life to itself, rather than to others, is the core of morality. Without it, all we have is the value of sentient lives to others, and if that is all we take into account, it leads to many abuses of sentient beings for purposes that are against those beings' interests, e.g. killing them for food just because we like the way their flesh tastes, or depriving them of their liberty if they state publicly that they disagree with the way their country is being run.
A non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, has never had value to itself. If it is aborted, it never WILL have value to itself. That is why it is not wrong to abort a non-sentient foetus. It is also why a non-sentient foetus should not be given human rights. We should only give human rights to human organisms whose lives have value to them, or have had value to them, or will at some future date have value to them. An aborted pre-sentient foetus falls into none of these categories. The idea of giving rights to something that is incapable of valuing anything, something to which it can't matter how you treat it, is absurd. — Herg
Does this mean we should allow the killing of sleeping people? I would say no. This is not because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that only beings that ARE non-sentient should be killed; it's because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that beings that HAVE BEEN sentient should not be killed. There are good reasons why, in most cases, we should follow these rules-of-thumb, the main one being that not following them tends to lead to cruelty against sentient beings, and this causes unhappiness, which is intrinsically evil. — Herg
Nice to see the true spirit of Christian love is alive and well on this forum. ;)Abortion doctors should all literally be crucified. — Gregory
I'd be perfectly willing to kill a pre-sentient foetus, but you don't get a lot of opportunity when you're a retired computer systems designer.If you wouldn't actually kill a fetus yourself you shouldn't be supporting it
I do, as it happens. Here it is, in two parts:You have no proof a fetus isn't as sentient as you — Gregory
This injunction only applies if the 'others' are sentient, because if they aren't sentient, it can't matter to them how they are treated, so it shouldn't matter to us.We are to treat others as we would be treated. — Gregory
Your question contains an error. If I had aborted the pre-sentient foetus that later became me, it would not have developed into me, so it would not be myself that I was aborting. You should have said, 'Would you have aborted the pre-sentient foetus that later developed into you?' And the answer is 'no', because both my parents were healthy and able to look after me without harm to themselves, they both wanted me to be born, and who am I to stop them having a child if they wanted one?Would you have aborted yourself?
Well, you don't really argue philosophy at all, do you? You've just come on this forum to preach at us and hurl insults. And now you've added ageism to your other delightful qualities. BTW, I'm not a Nazi, politically I'm pretty much middle of the road.↪Herg
I'm not going to argue philosophy with a doodoo elderly Nazi — Gregory
Why are you here at all if you hate philosophy so much?The basic premise of pro-life belief is that we follow common sense and respect all human life. It's not about philosophy. People used philosophy to justify slavery, killing Jews, and some philosophy some day may say anyone over 60 is no longer human. — Gregory
I am not saying that. I am talking about sentience, not life, and you have not had the guts to face up to my arguments. I am not denying that a pre-sentient foetus is alive. I am not denying that aborting a pre-sentient foetus is taking a human life. I am claiming that a human life can have no value to itself if it has never been sentient, so taking that life is not taking something of value. Could you value something if you could not think and feel? Of course you couldn't. Face up to this argument like a decent human being, stop evading the real issue, stop hiding behind youir supposed 'common sense', which is really just cowardice and prejudice, and answer my arguments, if you can. And if you can't, step up and be a decent human being and admit that you can't. If you don't do this, you have no right to be here on this forum.It's people who say "not enough life there for me to respect" when they obviously don't have the right to say that. — Gregory
If the bear knows she has a cub, then presumably the cub must be pretty well developed, so when you say 'yet it's ok for humans to do it', what you mean is that it's ok for humans to kill a well developed foetus. No, it isn't ok, because by that time, the foetus is a sentient being, and therefore has interests of its own which deserve to be considered.Imagine you watched a nature show where a female bear violently hits her side against a tree to kill her cub inside her. You would feel your soul (you could feel that anywhere in the body I suppose) recoil in shock from it. Yet it's ok for humans to do it? — Gregory
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.