Then they made a mistake obviously. Why it got ruined would be the question here. Was it because they didn't understand the culture they were letting in? They were too altruistic for their limited resources? The issue is not whether legal immigration vs illegal immigration is moral in this case, but whether they made a misjudgement. If you're looking for a benefit vs cost analysis on a countries capacity for immigration, that's fine. If you're looking for a moral justification for illegal immigration, I still have yet to see it. — Philosophim

I am not understanding what you aren't understanding. Why risk the fate of a country on an issue so complex on average citizens and not experts in that field that have access to information that the general public may not. like I said in my previous post, it should be down experts chosen by elected officials.

If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home. — Philosophim

Again, the comparison doesn't meet the severity of the topic. I understand the logic you are trying to use however you simply cannot use a blanket answer from the situation you just described as the answer for a topic that is so complex as immigration.

And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in. — Philosophim

This is literally the question from the start.

They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war. — Philosophim

Both of those options are terrible, either potentially die and kill people for your country, or move to a poor place due to your country being war-torn and have a terrible quality of life. No wonder they choose to come over here.

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D — I like sushi

How has technology changed people being honest?

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers. — I like sushi

Understandable, difference in experience. I agree people are hooked on their screens, but at the same time, they are doing what they want. No one is forcing a phone in front of them. From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap which probably is why there is a difference of opinion on this. But you cannot disagree with: the way we evolve as a civilisation and better as many peoples lives as possible, is technology. With that will come with insane change, which is scary, we just have to hope and pray the people directing the ship have humans in their best interests.

Just for an example, suppose we find the following premise probable: "Donald Trump wouldn't have the huge level of influence he has if Americans weren't widely dissatisfied with migration."

And suppose Donald Trump provokes a full blown constitutional crisis in the US by overturning the upcoming election (this seems unnervingly possible, even if not likely). This in turn tanks future economic growth, health, safety, etc.

In this case, it seems like migration levels are a key (perhaps the key) factor in crossing a tipping point that craters metrics of well-being. Brexit might be a similar issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Me personally I think politicians such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage inflate the issue of immigration to stir up a certain demographic, I am not saying they don't present any actual issues because they do. but using words such as "invasion" and creating lies about these immigrants is wrong and they are only doing it for their personal gain. Unfortunately, some people don't see that and the get swept up in their lies.

For example, I would imagine even people who embrace very open immigration levels would allow that if the US has 150 million people migrate to it over a few years there would be a crisis — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agreed, there is a limit.

Now, people often respond that people should just not be racist and xenophobic. This likely moves the tipping point much higher. Fair enough, I agree. But people ARE racist and xenophobic. So this is like saying that the solution to gun policy is for people not to murder or recommending that drug policy be handled by people only using drugs responsibly. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is, when you call people racist and xenophobic for their personal views, that only alienates them and pushes them further in their mindset. The best way to combat bad speech is better speech, if you censor these people the anger will only fester.

This is a lot of assuming. That would be like me saying, "Assuming people have a good reason for stealing your car, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim." Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all. — Philosophim

You are comparing someone who has potentially escaped a war zone, their family killed, scared and not knowing where to go. To someone stealing a car...

Also for an example for an occasion for when it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere and for a country to allow it, just read the first sentence again.

I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent. — I like sushi

How so?

I think this is a chronically online take. In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. However, if you were to always be online, constantly being fed news about war and hatred along with the constant arguments and attacks from every side possible you would think this.

Technology has made it so you and me can have this discussion, you can facetime your family wherever you are, you have an insanely large database where you can research whatever you want, you don't have to just trust whatever your told. Obviously there will be some Neanderthals that allow it to affect them negatively but it benefits the majority.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life.

Fair enough, I was just responding to the claim that no one can have valid concerns about legal immigration. One can even have valid concerns about natives moving within their own country, e.g. the population booms in areas that we predict will be below sea level in the medium term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand, I enjoy hearing different sides, you brought a different perspective that I hadn't thought of.

The question of if the benefits outweigh the costs is very fraught because the question will be "benefits for who?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the main topic has been bigger picture, talking about economies and broad subjects like housing and education. If you were to look at it individually then you would get lost in the possibilities, I think if you aim to increase wages, better education and provide affordable houses then that will benefit most people. Obviously, there will be people who won't benefit or have their quality of life decrease but if you are to subscribe to a countries way of life such as the UK and America, their societies have been built with the prior knowledge that some people will get the bad end of the stick. Not ideal but its the place we live in.

Can I ask what happens if a majority of a nation voted for open borders and the country gets ruined because of it?

I think that @tim wood point is that simply saying "let the people decide" is not an appropriate answer and may even make it worse. You are assuming that the average citizen has the ability to make the right choice with limited information, Also other outside influences may spread disinformation to try and persuade a majority to vote a certain way that may destabilize/ weaken that country.

I don't think it should be up to the people on this specific topic, I think it should be down to experts that are chosen by elected officials.

In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public. — I like sushi

I think squatting should be outlawed regardless on who you are, obviously if they do not have a passport they should be deported but if that is the case, if you have a British passport should simply be arrested and not be protected by the law.

It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out. — I like sushi

I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it.

It's still the case, however, that a sovereign nation's first responsibility is to its citizens, and not to the displaced people of the world.

So, we have a choice: help people manage to live better where they are, or resort to barbed wire, land mines. guard towers, guns, drones, and so on to keep them all out. — BC

I agree with that statement but I would add that even though the first responsibility is to protect their citizens. I would argue that powerful countries, (such as the UK and USA) have just as an equal responsibility to displaced people in the world. If you are a global superpower, you bear additional weight on your shoulders to help. To even deserve a voice on the global stage I believe you should be helping out as much as you can. I understand that isn't how politics works and I am being idealistic but along with all the pros immigration brings, helping is so important.

And I think this is true even if the goals of your immigration criteria are purely humanitarian. Arguably, if that's the case, you have the most motivation to make sure only the most deserving benefit from your resources, which will always be limited.

So, to reiterate, I think the big challenge right now is to find a set of procedural rules that is sufficiently humane but also sufficiently predictable and efficient to actually make immigration cirteria meaningful. — Echarmion

I wouldn't say I am purely humanitarian however I lean more to that side, in my opinion the ideas of "our" resources or "my" resources is what is limiting us here. Although I am not calling for a communist regime, I believe that, for us to further as a civilisation there needs to be a way for us to let go of certain ownerships and have everyone own it, equally. I do understand how that sounds extremely close to communism but I do prefer capitalism over communism, I just wonder if there is that sweet spot in-between.

I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You raised valid concerns about the level and impacts of migration. However you are pinpointing negatives about them where I believe if you look at a broader picture, the benefits often outweigh the challenges:

They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You touched on economic growth, immigrants often fill labour shortages in critical sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing/factory work, agriculture etc. This helps sustainability of these industries but also drives economic growth.

Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a good point, however, I would not say that this is not a stain on immigration but more of a responsibility of the country to introduce policies that can mitigate this. These can be to increase wages, bring down housing costs, investing in education and training, (for everyone, not just immigrants).

what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? — Tom Storm

I think this is the biggest cause of conflict when it comes to immigration. Me personally, I do not think that this is a big deal however for someone who is patriotic. Changing their countries culture and beliefs is this worst thing you can do. I think some aspects is just conspiracy paranoia as well, for example, those who are very against immigration in England believe that due to the high Muslim immigrant population, Shariah law will take over our laws. Which I just think is a silly idea but people will use this as a reason to push hatred.

I think diversity in society is a good thing as long as everyone is willing to be open to others, unfortunately that is an ideal situation that rarely happens.

Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not. — jgill

Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently?

The OP is not anti-democratic. If you're not interested in the topic of the thread I'm not sure why you are posting in it. Adios. — Leontiskos

You are making sense don't worry, @Philosophim thinks we are trying to take over and rule every democratic country with this conversation.

I firmly believe that each nation should be able to vote to decide how immigration works. If a nation wishes to have full and free immigration, then they can. If they want to be restrictive, then they can. It is up to the individuals of each nation to determine what they as a nation can allow in without risk to resources, population limits, housing, food, etc. There is no one size fits all, because every nation has different limits they have to consider. — Philosophim

I am not disagreeing with you, I am simply asking about your independent view on what we can do about this situation, lets dive into the topic and what your personal beliefs are, maybe even come up with an idea.

And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they? — Philosophim

I am not out here saying that I am the one to choose nor what we are doing currently is wrong. You have a completely wrong idea. It is like coming into a discussion about anything and saying, "Well it should be whatever the country democratically chooses, and if it doesn't choose the thing, then we shouldn't do it". Where is the discussion? Your just stating a widely known fact that no one disagrees with.

You deny entry when the immigrant does not meet the countries established laws for entry. I don't think its any more complicated then that. If you want to let more immigrants in, change the law. If you don't, change the law. The one thing which is completely unacceptable is when immigrants are allowed in against the law. — Philosophim

In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker.

And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human.

That is, a stream of immigrants to Greece or Italy should not be just a Greek or Italian problem, but a European problem. — tim wood

The reason this doesn’t work is that this is already sort of the case.

Speaking from the experience in England. A lot of our illegal immigrants are actually from close European countries such as France. You can travel a lot of European countries on land with somewhat ease, illegal immigrants will choose to travel through Europe, go to countries like France and sail over because they know that we are softer and we offer one of the better standards of life for refugees and immigrants.

European countries are all so unique and all have such different capabilities how do you decide which country does what in a way that’s fair, and who decides that? England has left the EU and may be followed by a couple countries, Germany as an example. In my opinion that shows that certain European countries do not enjoy being told what to do already, let alone when they are told to carry the biggest burden by some randomly elected governing body that they may of not even voted for.

I would like the US government to work with Mexico to make those people relatively comfortable, safe, and secure. — tim wood

I like your approach to the solution however I just think it is a bit optimistic. For the US government to step in and try to help that would mean a fair enough amount of money to be given in aid to Mexico for quite a while. In where a country who is already quite giving, and their population getting more fed up daily by the amount of money America is dishing out to other countries. I just don’t see the US government being able to do that without major complaints from their people.

Also for the US to solve issues within Mexico it would require military presence which then may make cartels and other organisation within Mexico more violent, possibly displacing more people and creating more refugees. There would be a potential for parts of Mexico being destroyed through a certain level of destruction that this violence would bring along.

I do think there is a responsibility for America to find ways to help. To be a global superpower in this world I think there is weight on your shoulders to offer support where you can. So in my opinion you are correct that the US needs to find ways to help I just think it isn’t that simple at all and unless you were to wage a war on gangs, which I don’t think the US is willing to do right now, it will be really hard to change the business as usual.

So there's nothing behavioral that signals cognition to you. It's a matter of wiring? — frank

There are behavioural differences between a 24 week old foetus and a new-born though.

Before 24 weeks foetus exhibit reflexive movements but this is not indicative of conscious, more for neural development.

And your question of, is it a matter of wiring? wiring is essential for all life.

Are these capabilities that a newborn would have? Newborns are unable to focus their eyes, their muscle movements are reflexive, and when they smile, it's a sign that they just passed gas. Do they have enough cognitive capability to show up as human? — frank

Yes, you have to remember, to legally abort in some countries the foetus can not be any more then 24 weeks old. There are humongous differences, the foetus's lungs and brain are not sufficient enough to work independently, whereas a new-borns is. A new-born's organs are fully developed and functional, allowing the new-born to breathe, eat, and regulate body temperature independently. A foetus can't. A foetus can only react to light and sound where as a new born has more developed motor and sensory skills, a new-born can see (limited), hear and respond to touch and other stimuli. Of course they aren't going to be as developed, (it is a new-born) but comparing it to a 24 week foetus because it has bad eyesight and they smile when they fart is just not correct.

You can insist that a caterpillar is not a butterfly. I shall insist that a caterpillar is not yet a butterfly. I am thinking of the state of being a caterpillar (or a chrysalis or a butterfly) as a stage in a life-cycle. Because the changes in this life-cycle are so dramatic, we apply different terms to the stages. But we include our understanding of each stage in the concept - the way we think about - each term. We call this the life-cycle of the butterfly, choosing the final stage to identify the life-cycle, which is somewhat arbitrary, but not incomprehensible. This is why there is so much argument about abortion. — Ludwig V

I think using the caterpillar and butterfly analogy is incorrect, I think a better one would be a seed planted in a garden. The life cycle of a seed starts at germination, where it starts to take in moisture and sprout, if you were to compare it to a foetus it would be the stage where the egg is fertilized and it starts to divide.

I think the analogy works not only with the similarities but also how we view a "seed". If you knew that the seed you planted was going to grow over your favourite plant, blocking the sunlight and killing it. you would remove the seed because the seed is a lot less valuable then your favourite plant.

I think consistency is important. — Patterner

Sorry I am not quite understanding your point. Are you saying:

If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion?

If that is the correct understanding then @Michael's question still stands, why?

If this isn't the correct understanding please explain,

The media is highly active in sensationalising an already sensitive issue sadly - especially in the US where major contention exists among more religiously inclined folk. — I like sushi

I have enjoyed seeing an actual discussion on this issue, I have only recently joined here and its refreshing to have a debate here and not on X. It is crazy to see how much social media inflames this situation.

You should also consider that there are extremists on BOTH sides of the argument too. Some even argue for abortion right up to conception - Bodily Autonomy argument. — I like sushi

Completely agree.

That's why I said "abortion may be morally impermissible". The point I was making is that Samlw was assuming consequentialism in his defence of abortion. His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences. — Michael

Can I ask on your personal stance on abortion?

That wasn't my logic. You said that women should have a choice whether to have a child and I agreed. I then said that when a woman is raped, her right to decide whether to have a child has been violated (and she was violated in many other ways most certainly) and that is why many agree that in cases of rape abortion is permissible. — Hanover

I understand you are pro choice. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the fact they would allow an abortion under those circumstances. If they truly believe that abortion is murder and people should be banned from getting them, then that should apply to all foetus lives. And Infact they have made it worse on themselves because they have put so much emphasis on the “killing” of a child.

This is a long message, if there is any punctuation or spelling issues I apologies

You are the one who claimed that it is acceptable kill a foetus if it is unconscious and unacceptable to kill a foetus if it is conscious. You must explain why being conscious matters. Asking me the question "why do we value human life over other life?" does not provide an explanation or a justification of your claim — Michael

I think it is acceptable to kill a foetus that is unconscious because it would be the most beneficial thing in every scenario that it is chosen. What I mean by that is, that there is a reason every single time an abortion is chosen. That decision affects real people who are living and conscious. There are millions of reasons to have an abortion:

You can’t afford a child

That child has early signs of a serious disability in foetus stage

That child was a result of rape

The parents are extremely young

You and your partner are splitting up

You are studying / working on your career and so many other reasons.

My point, is that normal people want abortions for so many reasons, it doesn’t have to be severe like a rape victim.

And if a child was to come into a lower quality of life just because their parents were forced to have them, that wouldn’t be fair. And that goes for the other side where, if two parents had a lower quality of life due to being forced to having a really disabled child or they couldn’t afford the child that would also be unfair. That is the pros of having the choice. I mean how do you even know the foetus even wants to be born? Can you ask an 8 week foetus? No, because it can’t even conceptualise being a thing.

You can say you are still preventing a human life and I agree, but the benefits out weigh the cons in my opinion.

This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. People who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it. — T Clark

I know it was a weak argument it was just a small paragraph to get the conversation going. I understand what you mean by 1). I would just say that there is more scientific evidence pointing to the fact that abortion isn’t “killing a child”.

What I would say to 2). If those people see it like that then they do not need to have an abortion. I just find it weird how people push their beliefs on to trying to take away someone else’s choice.

Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child? — NOS4A2

Sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by this. The child has no choice regardless of we choose. It has no cognitive function to make a choice.

If you want to baffle the world with statistics, you need to do better homework. About 49% of the world's population is male, and of the rest, there are many prepubescent, many post-menopausal, and some infertile for various reasons. Thus more than 50% are ineligible for any right to abortion. Perhaps you mean that around 60% of the world' population live in countries where abortion is legal and accessible for women who might want or need it? — unenlightened

Yes

I must say I find it odd that folk who get very exercised about the sacred value of a foetus, seem to have little to say about the children killed day after day in wars and famines and from poor sanitation and lack of clean water and of easily preventable diseases. It almost looks like the real agenda is the control of women's bodies and sexual expression, not saving precious innocent human lives. But of course I am an old cynic as well as a pedant. — unenlightened

I do agree with the “agenda” terminology. However I do not mention it because I think it can make you sound quite paranoid. I would say some people definitely have the agenda, but there will be a vast majority that is pro-life for their own reasons.

That question has no bearing on the pro-life claim that abortion is wrong. A pro-life advocate could equally be a vegan and believe that killing animals is wrong. — Michael

The question was towards the quote below. In which case it does have. You are right in saying that a person like you described would have an issue with that question. But I’m asking on your answer to that question. Further I would say. If you would be in a position to choose over a human life over a farm animal I would say 99.9% of the time, a human life would be chosen.

As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life? — Michael

As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life? — Michael

I would answer this question with a question. Why do we value human life over every other life?

It is moral to take away your choice to kill me for the same reason that it is moral to take away your choice to kill a foetus; both I and the foetus have a right to life, and our right to light is greater than your choice to kill us. — Michael

I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. So in some way you can’t use human rights in the argument because an abortion would be the same as killing something else that isn’t conscious such as a blade of grass.

The reason some allow for the exception for rape is because people should be given the right to choose to become pregnant. If the sex was consensual, the choice was made to expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy. That's how that works. — Hanover

But with that logic you would be murdering something to cover up a rape. Do two wrongs make a right?

Do I have the basic (moral) right to kill you if you annoy me? Presumably you believe we don't. Some believe that we also don't have the basic (moral) right to kill a foetus.

So again you're just begging the question. — Michael

In my opinion that’s a weak counter because I can flip the same question and say, is it moral to take away the choice?

You've begged the question by assuming that we have the right to an abortion — Michael

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, I would argue it should be a basic right. (That’s not saying everyone should be having abortions, it’s saying everyone should have the choice).

Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day. — Outlander

That isn’t how assisted suicide works. In anywhere it is Legal.

There's a way to look at it not from abortion (nor religion) specifically but from a general cultural and societal standpoint: Unconditional respect for human life or not. Blood sports (gladiators/prisoners fighting to the death for public entertainment/their freedom) or televised executions/public hangings for example all contribute to this dynamic of a given society and have largely been phased out in most all civilized countries for reasons that they do not contribute to (have no place in) modern, intelligent, and advanced societies. Back in man's earlier days when the threat of a bloody invasion and having one's town/city/fiefdom/kingdom/empire sacked to the ground and every man, woman, and child killed or enslaved was a very real and looming possibility on the back of everyone's mind, it was probably of benefit for the average adult man and woman to realize, such things could occur and to be prepared. Now that war is largely technological/nuclear and traditional ground invasions of troops are becoming less and less likely, everyday exposure and thoughts of such have little to no utility only burden and detriment. So, why not instill the value of unconditional respect for human life in any form and at any stage to a populous? We can go forward or we can go backward. People scarcely know their own nature, despite their own self-assurance otherwise. — Outlander

Let’s put this into context. This is abortion. And I would argue that it shows an actual advancement in civilisation where we can safely choose whether or not to have a kid. That allows for so much more freedom. And the abortion isn’t some mediaeval operation, it’s a pill or a simple operation that does no harm to the mother.

They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael

Ok understandable. In which case it would have to be discussed on what do we class as a life. Consciousness is believed to start developing around 24-26 weeks into the pregnancy. So if it isn’t aware, awake or has any capability of choosing to do anything is it alive?

But this also brings me back to my first point. This is a belief, and to take away rights from people simply because of that I find disgusting. I mean some people are so pro-life that they would force a teenage girl/ a girl that has been raped to have the child simply because some people believe it’s murder.

Think about how many teenagers who don’t understand life have managed to have an abortion. Think, if they were forced to have that child would their quality of life decrease or increase? Obviously there would be cases of their life increasing but I believe the vast majority would have a decrease.

This line of reasoning will entail the conclusion that it is wrong to kill a baby from the moment of conception. — Michael

I understand where people would get that from, however my counter would be that it would be wrong to kill a foetus that is conscious, I think the logic of every foetus is a potential life is correct however, to call it murder would be dramatic aslong as the foetus isn’t conscious.

Is that really a necessary conclusion though? Responsibility, guilt, justification are not ontological categories but ultimately human judgements. Free will is not logically necessary for these categories to function, it's just how they're mostly used. — Echarmion

You are right in saying free will is not necessary for these categories to function. however, if you were to say, murder someone and free will doesn't exist then what are those categories even for?

Responsibility - That person isn't responsible for that murder, they didn't freely choose to kill that person, it was always going to happen. People would be just be charged for manslaughter at most.

Guilt - Why would you feel guilty if you believe there is no free will? It isn't your fault that happened it was always going to happen,

Justification - The justification would be that there is no free will, so this one can remain as normal.

I think we all subscribe to our way of life, we understand that if we do something bad we get imprisoned or fined and we choose not to do that due to the consequences, (or you just don't want to do it). In my opinion that is free will. If you were a victim to an attack you would want that person to be jailed or have some justice, but if there is no free will you would have to forgive that person and be angry at the stars,

"Freedom" needs a definition. It's not something which can simply be measured empirically. That definition needs to account for reasons, for a decision without reasons is contradictory. Freedom should be distinguishable from randomness. If that's the case, then it would seem that freedom must refer to a specific kind of reasons — Echarmion

I agree that freedom needs a definition, and was going to include that in my original post however, I didn't want it to be too long.

I agree that it needs to account for reasons also. However, just because there is reasoning behind actions doesn't mean there is no free will.

"freedom should be distinguishable from randomness" is interesting... In my eyes randomness is caused by freedom. The reason you can't know exactly what is going to happen when you wake up in the morning is the fact there is so many millions of factors in your day that literally anything could happen. Every day is randomised by the freedom of everything.

I believe we have free will when it comes to our decisions, and if you don't you are opening up to arguing that if people do not have free will, then everyone is not responsible for their actions, which we are. Obviously there are factors, and I wouldn't disagree that the environment you are brought up in/ are in, affects how you would approach certain decisions along with many other factors such as:

Health, (both mental and physical)
financials,
personality,
morals,
religion,
family,

You could use these factors and the data that comes along with it to predict what certain people may or may not do in a situation however, if you get it right it doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, or your a god, it just means you have predicted and analysed the situation correctly.

My main issue with the argument of no free will would be the fact that if you believed in that you would have to argue that murderers and other heinous crimes are justified because the perpetrator simply had no choice, he HAD to kill those people, its not his fault.

Throughout writing this, I have argued to myself that you could punch someone in the face at any point in the day if you wanted to, but you don't because you don't want to. Maybe that's because you aren't aggressive or you are scared of the repercussions, it could be anything, but maybe that "not wanting" to do something even though you could do it at any point, takes away part of that free will. But even then with that thought it would still argue that free will is real, it just gets hindered.