↪Herg "because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything."

What makes you say that? — Xanatos

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)

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.

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.

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

I certainly agree.

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

I agree for this, also.

Abortion doctors should all literally be crucified. If you wouldn't actually kill a fetus yourself you shouldn't be supporting it

Abortion doctors should all literally be crucified. — Gregory

Nice to see the true spirit of Christian love is alive and well on this forum. ;)

If you wouldn't actually kill a fetus yourself you shouldn't be supporting it

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.

Scum of the earth..

↪Herg

Scum of the earth.. — Gregory

ROFL.

That's gross. I'm not a Christian btw. Christianity is pro-abortion because God in their system can command abortion and so maybe does

I'm an atheist who believes in morality

You have no proof a fetus isn't as sentient as you

We are to treat others as we would be treated. Would you have aborted yourself?

You have no proof a fetus isn't as sentient as you — Gregory

I do, as it happens. Here it is, in two parts:
1. It is obvious that an embryo in the first few days could not possibly feel anything, since it is no more than a few living cells. So the real issue is not WHETHER a foetus becomes sentient, but WHEN it does.

2. The nervous system, which would be required for sentience, does not start to develop until the 3rd week of pregnancy:
"Following fertilisation, the nervous system begins to form in the 3rd week of development." (https://teachmeanatomy.info/the-basics/embryology/central-nervous-system/)
So a foetus cannot be 'as sentient as me' until at least the 3rd week of pregnancy. QED.

My personal view is that the ability to feel pain, rather than mere sentience, is what counts. The latest evidence is that a foetus cannot feel pain until it is at least 12 weeks old:
"Overall, the evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks." (https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3)

So I think I would say that it is morally okay to abort a foetus less than 12 weeks old.

We are to treat others as we would be treated. — 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.

Would you have aborted yourself?

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?

I'm not going to argue philosophy with a doodoo elderly Nazi

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. The mind can believe anything. The truth is about common sense and honouring life. That's all I'm gonna say. No more is needed

If you want us to respect all human life then you need to be specific. When does human life begin? Is a zygote a person? A blastocyst? An embryo?

It's pretty obvious what human life is unless you are trying to justify abortion

If it was obvious we would not be having this discussion.

Are you OK with a woman taking a "morning after" pill to prevent the blastocyst from implanting in her womb?

Morning after pill is obviously abortion. People have reasons for defending abortion and these reasons blur their reasoning. Just as people justified enslaving Native Americans, people do worse than enslave the unborn. A woman has the duty and right to be a mother once pregnant and can't say she can kill her child because it infringes on her freedom. Are we to say a pregnant women is biologically different and so she has no right to life?

Pro-choice people shut down their conscience and think of the issue with reason disconnected to conscience. What right have they to arbitrarily say where life begins?

The obvious answer is you respect it all

there is Don Marquis's future of value argument in regards to abortion. I — Xanatos

We tore that up maybe a year or so ago. If you're inclined to give it credence, try reading it first.

OK - I just wanted to be clear. You believe in zygote personhood (i.e., the zygote is a legally a person and any attempts to prevent the zygote from being implanted in the woman's womb is murder.).

So now I'm curious - what is your position regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF)? More specifically, what should be done with the left over human beings who are sitting around cryogenically frozen? Exact numbers are difficult to come by, but by at least one estimate there are 1.4 million in the US alone.

Is it murder to destroy a cryogenically frozen embryo? If yes, then what should be done with them?

If they are not already dead then duh you don't kill them. Science is not blurry when life is, both at the beginning and end. It's people who say "not enough life there for me to respect" when they obviously don't have the right to say that. They have the civil right to express their opinions but they have the need to feel their souls on this issue. They make the matter fuzzy when its really clear. Watch pro-choice peoples' *faces* when they discuss the issue. Guilt micro and macro expressions all over the place. Being pro-choice is not going to make your life better. It hinders understanding of your own soul

I just repeat this observation here:

But those people who do believe that a person is born at the moment of conception will then have no choice but force - if necessary - a 11 year old girl raped by her father to carry a child to full term. I mean you can't murder an innocent person whatever the context.

In fact any raped woman would be forced to carry the child to conception. Your family could be killed in a house invasion and you could be raped pregnant and you would have to carry the child for 9 months to conception.

Yes, extreme and unpleasant examples but sometimes ethical views can have extreme and unpleasant concequences. And, sadly, when it comes to rape (and even incest) we are not talking about a hugely rare thing. Quite a fanatical thing to believe that a raped woman or barely adolescent girl should be forced to give birth.

Teenagers should learn morals instead of being taught its OK to kill their offspring. An abortion would ruin her life more

Pro-choice arguments are all

1) low IQ arguments, as "pro-choice" indicates

2) an appeal to emotion, as the title "pro-choice", again, indicates

3) a pride filled attempt to make an arbitrary limit on who should lived based on a desire for maximal liberty to do what "I me mine wants!!"

I'll add this tonight:

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?

I don't think women are really pro-choice. A man can make up his mind about that anytime in his life but a woman really becomes pro-choice in her pregnancies (or pro-family). She does so by regarding the fetus as an extension of her sexual organs which is why they say "my body my right" even though it's not her body but her offspring that's at issue. She say's "my freedom for my sexual/reproductive liberation" without regard for whether her offspring may have that right too in seed form

Argument: conception is the result of the sexual act, therefore, abortion is morally wrong, despite the intentions of those who engaged in said act.

Counter: I enjoy swimming. Sometimes I swim in non-sterile environments (lakes, rivers, ponds, the ocean. etc.) Prior to swimming in these environments I am aware that I could potentially end up with some sort of unwanted result: swimmer's ear, a leech or two, etc. I swim anyway, knowing the possible result. Should any of these unwanted results occur I take the appropriate steps to resolve the problem. More applicable to the abortion comparison: If after a pond swim I should happen to find a leech or two on me I do not consider it my moral duty to allow it to continue to drink my blood, despite my knowing that I could end up with a leech on me. I remove it with a knife. I do not, generally, kill it; there is no need. An unwanted life form living off of another is called a parasite. I do not advocate for the continued existence of a parasite on moral grounds, regardless of the parasite.

You do have lots of various points indeed! :)

↪Herg

I'm not going to argue philosophy with a doodoo elderly Nazi — Gregory

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.

Nevertheless, I'm here whenever you wish to engage with MY arguments and give reasoned replies, instead of insults.

Have a nice day.

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

Why are you here at all if you hate philosophy so much?

I am not criticizing your stance. I am simply attempting to follow through on the implications of your position.

Are you opposed to in vitro fertilization (that would be a legitimat6e position to take)? If not, then are you OK with millions of partially developed human beings existing in a sort of unconscious limbo for all eternity? If not, what should happen?

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

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.

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

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.

If you are going to come on here and argue against pro-choice people, you should at least be able to distinguish between people who think abortion is ok at any stage, like James Riley, and people who don't, like me and Antinatalist.