Is Abortion Ethical?

[Whia]

This is my point. In the same way, something is only considered valid if someone externally validates it. In both instances, the object requires participation of the subject to arrive at any meaningful conclusion about its existence.

In other words, anything whose existence is contingent on something greater than itself can only ever understand reality subjectively, regardless of the topic at hand. This is confirmed by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which mathematically proves 1. the inherent incompleteness of any consistent system and 2. the inability to prove the consistency of axioms within the system.

But that thing, its properties, and effects on its surroundings exist regardless. What does this have to do with abortion now?

Only something outside of the system can ever prove its consistency, or in the case of our discussion, its value. Thus, only the creator of the system itself can say whether or not it's intrinsically valuable. Since you are neither the author nor creator of humanity, your determination of whether human life is intrinsically valuable is null and void. If God is source of objective reality than His determination of something's value is, by definition, objective as His omniscience requires no external reference point.

No. Again, intrinsic value is still an incoherent concept no matter how you frame it. Like I said, "value" is not a property of something. When you call something valuable, you're never actually describing the thing itself, you're describing your relationship to the thing. And god's hypothetical existence does nothing to change that, and his determinations are still subjective because there's no objective reality that can lend itself to anything's intrinsic value. Even if I concede god's existence, life is still demonstrably not intrinsically valuable as there are still various forms of life that aren't valued by various people.

Pain and pleasure are not interchangeable with harm and benefit, so your point is moot. For instance, the famous Vietnamese monk who self-immolated not only subjectively experienced pain in a much different way than the vast majority of human beings due to his immense mental toughness, but even if we allow for an excruciating amount of pain, the fact remains that he still considered it more beneficial to burn himself alive regardless of the suffering he would have to endure.

I fundamentally disagree with that first sentence, and your counterexample doesn't actually counter anything. So a monk sacrificed himself for what he perceived to be a greater good, what a guy. Pain/pleasure/harm/benefit isn't a zero sum game, and people are capable of experiencing a multitude of these things at once for various reasons.

I grasp this point just fine. My issue is with your repeated failure/refusal to demonstrate how one can ever determine an objective starting point.

I'm kind of dumbfounded right now, having to explain the concept of acting in accordance with the facts.

Sacrificial love.

How beautiful.

You're avoiding the question. Attempting to pick apart my one example (I could provide many more, if you'd like) does nothing to substantiate your claim. You have to first prove it's "their own" body. As I pointed out in my initial post, the sum and substance of who they are precedes their existence, so trying to claim ownership of atoms, cells and genetic material that preexists you makes little sense.

Except for the bit where (ostensibly) only one person is in control of said atoms, cells and genes at a time. That one individual reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences of their own immediate actions, therefore owning said stuff in about as meaningful a way as I can imagine. Being the result of preexisting material is irrelevant in a way that defies description.

This assumes that the unborn child isn't a person, when you've already indicated it is. Their physical development is irrelevant to their categorical distinction as a human being. Thus, abortion is a moral issue.

But its status as a person is still irrelevant, as it's patently distinct from other, more developed persons in a myriad of previously mentioned ways. The label doesn't matter and is really only being used here to obfuscate said distinction.

While I agree in principle, it's worth pointing out that this so-called ludicrous idea was compelling enough to lead an entire nation into war with the world. The fact of the matter is that Nazism was the political manifestation of Nihilism, which embraced wholeheartedly the notion that strength is the ultimate good and weakness the ultimate evil that must be purged. "Strength" and "weakness" can't be proven false because the very definition of what is weak or strong is completely subjective. Unless you are able to anchor your values in something objectively true, you can't refute their arguments, you can only reject them as a violation of your own subjective principles.

Their arguments, meaning the Nazis, or their meaning nihilists?

If the former, then... it can't be the former.
If the latter, then you refuted their arguments for me - they're using completely subjective, and therefore useless and unworkable definitions.

Pragmatism is relativism disguised as utilitarianism. In order for a pragmatist's arguments not be steeped in relativism, they must know that which is objectively true. Which brings us to the joyful subject of epistemology.

Are you gonna start arguing about solipsism next? Obviously a flawless perception of reality would be ideal, but that's likely not an option. You don't need to understand objective reality perfectly in order to observe simple cause and effect, especially if your observations appear to be fairly consistently reliable. Don't let good be the enemy of perfect... or however that phrase goes.

 

[omgliekkewl]

I'm genuinely enjoying this exchange. I'll respond to your points tomorrow when I get some free time. Thanks for taking the time to grapple, engage and perhaps even untangle these arguments with me.

 

[Whia]

No need to rush, this thread's not going anywhere. And likewise. By the way if I ever come across as snarky or snide, I apologize. Don't take it personally, I'm just sort of a ****-head.

 

[omgliekkewl]

But that thing, its properties, and effects on its surroundings exist regardless.

No doubt, but our finite nature prevents us from seeing the whole picture in regard to the full extent of something's properties as well as its ultimate effect on its surroundings. Anything we claim to know about reality is, at the end of the day, a position of faith based in an imperfect set of data that we trust explains reality in a sufficient manner.

What does this have to do with abortion now?

It has to do with the perceived versus true cost of abortion. If we cannot see the breadth of how our decisions affect reality, we cannot properly weigh the costs in terms of harm and benefit and are therefore disqualified from objectively deeming abortion an ethical procedure.

What happens if you abort a child whose contributions to humanity would have maximized our well being beyond measure? Still beneficial to kill them in the womb?

No. Again, intrinsic value is still an incoherent concept no matter how you frame it. Like I said, "value" is not a property of something.

It's fascinating to me that you say that intrinsic value is an incoherent concept while using a common language to communicate words that possess intrinsic value. If this weren't the case, you would have no reason to assume that I'll ever grasp what you're trying to say. Value is merely a description of the property something possesses and is synonymous with meaning. We can certainly ascribe subjective meaning to objects but our subjective interpretation does nothing to negate the existence of objective meaning, nor does it preclude us from gleaning that objective reality from our lens of subjectivity.

I also want to point out that, contrary to your claim that 'value' is not synonymous with 'valid,' when you look up both these words in a dictionary, you find they originate from the exact same Latin root word "valere" meaning to be strong, or well.

When you call something valuable, you're never actually describing the thing itself, you're describing your relationship to the thing.

It's very possible to do both. The intrinsic value of your words transcends the barriers of subjectivity, at least partially, and I'm able to grasp and respond to your arguments in a way that allows us to reach common ground, use common reasoning skills and draw common conclusions.

I think one misunderstanding is the way in which we use "value." If I write down an integer, it has an objective value regardless of my subjective understanding of that value and, indeed, assigning that integer a numerical value simultaneously describes how I understand the integer (an English word comprised of a series of morphemes that refer to an intangible set of ideas) as well as describing the integer itself (as demonstrated mathematically across language and cultural barriers).

And god's hypothetical existence does nothing to change that, and his determinations are still subjective because there's no objective reality that can lend itself to anything's intrinsic value.

On the contrary, it changes everything. I'm not sure what your understanding of God's nature is but it certainly a much smaller and weaker god than the one presented by the Judeo-Christian worldview, who precedes all of creation and is the sole inhabitant of base reality. Thus, if God is the author of existence, He alone is fit to judge the intrinsic value of any given object, just as the author of a novel is the only one fit to judge the true meaning they're trying to convey with their words.

Even if I concede god's existence, life is still demonstrably not intrinsically valuable as there are still various forms of life that aren't valued by various people.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A person's failure to recognize something's intrinsic value is evidence of a failure of comprehension, not the absence of intrinsic value.

If I refuse to confirm that 2 + 2 = 4, does my indifference to mathematical reasoning destroy the intrinsic relationship between the values conveyed in that equation? Of course not.

I fundamentally disagree with that first sentence, and your counterexample doesn't actually counter anything. So a monk sacrificed himself for what he perceived to be a greater good, what a guy. Pain/pleasure/harm/benefit isn't a zero sum game, and people are capable of experiencing a multitude of these things at once for various reasons.

Yes, but it's the nebulous nature of these experiences and the subjective nature of these reasons that make it impossible to determine whether abortion is ethical without taking a leap of faith, whether it's faith in oneself or faith in something greater than oneself.

I'm kind of dumbfounded right now, having to explain the concept of acting in accordance with the facts.

Facts are amoral, meaningless pieces of information without the faith-based value judgments we use to analyze them.

How beautiful.

It's the only ethic that's immune from humanity's corrupting inclinations towards pride, lust, envy, hate, greed and a host of other divisive characteristics that harm us both individually and collectively.

Except for the bit where (ostensibly) only one person is in control of said atoms, cells and genes at a time.

Your parenthetical qualification beautifully demonstrates my point that your entire premise is faith-based, not fact based, which makes it all the more interesting when you claim to act in accordance to the facts. Uncertainty isn't a fact, no matter how ostensible it may appear. The earth was ostensibly flat based on the available "facts" until an influx of new information utterly demolished this geological paradigm.

You also seem to be neglecting the fact that humans are just as much products of their nurture as their nature. If I abuse and starve my child, I've literally stripped him of his autonomy over his own body and imposed my own will on him. The control he has over himself is an illusion that is immediately shattered when I demonstrate that my decisions are what hold his life in the balance, not his own.

If, then, a person's autonomy can be stripped at any given moment by a stronger adversary, we only have two options. We must either affirm that autonomy belongs only to those strong and fit enough to impose their own will on others or, conversely, we must affirm that we hold these truths to be self-evident and irrevocable: that all humans are endowed by their Creator with intrinsic value and, as a direct consequence, the inalienable rights to life and liberty which no other person can deprive them of, no matter their developmental stage.

That one individual reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences of their own immediate actions, therefore owning said stuff in about as meaningful a way as I can imagine.

Your criteria for ownership are weak. If I borrow your car for a road trip, I can reap all of the benefits it has to offer without claiming ownership. Similarly, if I crash it into a tree, I can experience the direct effects of impact but the overarching consequences of my actions are going to be far more significant for you as the owner of the vehicle.

Stewardship =/= Ownership

Being the result of preexisting material is irrelevant in a way that defies description.

I'm pretty sure this premise is the foundation of all societal laws related to ownership and intellectual property. Whether tangible or intangible, someone is only said to own something if they have a legitimate preexisting claim to the object or idea in question. If God is the source of creation, we are merely stewards of our own bodies.

In short, "I think therefore I am" does not lay the logical foundation for "I think therefore I am my own."

But its status as a person is still irrelevant, as it's patently distinct from other, more developed persons in a myriad of previously mentioned ways. The label doesn't matter and is really only being used here to obfuscate said distinction.

You say a person's status doesn't matter when answering if abortion is ethical, I say the distinction between a person's development doesn't matter when answering the same question. The obfuscation comes in thinking that either of our opinions can somehow escape the realm of faith.

Even if we allow for this qualitative distinction, who is the ultimate judge when it comes to determining which stage of development is worth preserving and which stage is disposable? Why 24 weeks and not 25 or 23? What if, in placing relevance on the potentiality of the person and not the actuality, the choice is made to preserve a child who later cures cancer, unlocks the secrets of harnessing fusion or discovers a cost-effective means of desalinating ocean water? If you snuff out that life without ever seeing what becomes of it, you've placed yourself in the position of God and determined that the benefit of saving this life could never outweigh the benefit that comes from destroying it, when this assumption is patently false.

Their arguments, meaning the Nazis, or their meaning nihilists?

Both or either.

If the former, then... it can't be the former.

This is faith, not fact.

If the latter, then you refuted their arguments for me - they're using completely subjective, and therefore useless and unworkable definitions.

So I refuted their completely subjective, useless and unworkable arguments by utilizing my own subjective (and therefore useless and unworkable) arguments? What about jihadists, whose worldview is shaped not by the subjective philosophy of an obscure German atheist but from what they believe is the direct revelation of their god Allah to the prophet Muhammad? If what they say happened truly happened and Sharia law is, in fact, the objective measure of good and evil (or benefit/harm), how exactly do you oppose such a position without resorting to similar faith-based reasoning?

Without an objective observer to ground one's understanding of reality, how can one ever achieve an objective perspective?

Are you gonna start arguing about solipsism next?

No, because solipsism itself is fatally flawed. If one postulates that the self is the only thing that can be known, they fail to account for how one can truly know that the self is the only thing that can be known. This is self-deception in its most basic form.

The only thing a person can say with any certainty is that they don't know anything and must, instead, choose to operate according to evidence-based axioms that ultimately hinge on faith in the axiom itself.

Obviously a flawless perception of reality would be ideal, but that's likely not an option.

If God exists, this is the only option worth considering. Everything else is noise.

You don't need to understand objective reality perfectly in order to observe simple cause and effect, especially if your observations appear to be fairly consistently reliable.

But what happens if you can't observe the dramatically harmful societal effect of a culture that has systematically destroyed 50+ million unborn children within your own lifetime? What if it takes one, two or three generations to manifest? If the effect echoes through the passage of time in a multitude of directions that were previously unknown to you, the supposed benefits of the cause is propped up by a false, overly simplistic narrative.

Even if our observations appear to be fairly consistent and reliable, this does nothing to ensure that they're comprehensive or maximally beneficial. Lurking variables always exist and data that seems all-encompassing (not to mention emotional bias in interpreting the data) can easily skew one's understanding of reality. Case in point, the U.S. military issued cigarettes as a standard ration to soldiers up until 1975, weighing the short-term benefit of increased focus and psychological comfort over any perceived physical hazards. Yet, in doing so, they actively contributed to an entire generation's addiction to cigarettes, the normalization (and, in many instances, glorification) of tobacco consumption that would influence future generations, the introduction of heart disease, emphyzema and cancer on a massive scale as well as the negative health effects experienced by the tens of millions exposed to second-hand smoke.

This is but one of a thousand examples of minor short term "benefits" leading to major long-term harm as a result of our imperfect understanding of cause and effect.

Don't let good be the enemy of perfect... or however that phrase goes.

By definition, something can only be good if it possesses the qualities required for a particular role. Without perfect knowledge, we can neither know the objective role of a given thing nor the qualities required for that role to be fulfilled. The best we can do is make an educated guess.

Thus, the question of "Is abortion ethical?" is impossible to answer without first answering the question "Does God exist?" and even then, we are ultimately forced to accept this answer as a proposition of faith, regardless of religious persuasion.

 

[Whia]

No doubt, but our finite nature prevents us from seeing the whole picture in regard to the full extent of something's properties as well as its ultimate effect on its surroundings. Anything we claim to know about reality is, at the end of the day, a position of faith based in an imperfect set of data that we trust explains reality in a sufficient manner.

We're gonna start arguing about solipsism aren't we?

It has to do with the perceived versus true cost of abortion. If we cannot see the breadth of how our decisions affect reality, we cannot properly weigh the costs in terms of harm and benefit and are therefore disqualified from objectively deeming abortion an ethical procedure.

So in other words: we don't have access to all data, so let's not attempt making determinations based on current data.

What happens if you abort a child whose contributions to humanity would have maximized our well being beyond measure? Still beneficial to kill them in the womb?

And what if you let the next Hitler live, who then married a female Stalin, and had 6 sets of Pol Pot quintuplets. If you're gonna make essentially the "let's err on the side of caution" argument, that door swings both ways. As far as pro-life/choice arguments go, this is as shallow as it gets.

Not to mention, there's a certain irony in you indulging in such wild* speculation having just immediately prior decried the practice of making decisions based on incomplete data.

*And yes, it is wild speculation. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people are incredibly unremarkable, so that particular hypothetical scenario is so utterly farfetched so as to be of extremely minimal significance. If there was some kind of prenatal test for changing-the-world-for-the-better-ism, then sure. But alas, no such luck.

It's fascinating to me that you say that intrinsic value is an incoherent concept while using a common language to communicate words that possess intrinsic value. If this weren't the case, you would have no reason to assume that I'll ever grasp what you're trying to say. Value is merely a description of the property something possesses and is synonymous with meaning. We can certainly ascribe subjective meaning to objects but our subjective interpretation does nothing to negate the existence of objective meaning, nor does it preclude us from gleaning that objective reality from our lens of subjectivity.

Words don't have intrinsic value either. That's so much more nonsensical than saying life has it.

And meaning is exactly as subjective, and no more intrinsic, than value. If these are inherent, objective properties of things, then how is it measured? What metric or method can be used to demonstrate any given object has meaning or value, and moreover how much value it has? How can you demonstrate these things in a way that is definitive and objective? Mass, for example, is an inherent property of something - there's nothing subjective or negotiable about the fact that the Empire State Building weighs more than a newborn puppy.

Here's a thought experiment of my own: in a hypothetical universe with no life save one lone human being (plucked from our universe, so physically he remains completely unchanged) and nothing else - no other animals, no resources with which one could potentially use to live comfortably, albeit in solitude, and definitely no god. He's cared about by no one, he can't offer anything to anyone, there's no facet of his existence which provides any use to anything or anyone. He is utterly solitary. What objective value can you say this person has and how did you make that determination? Because again, he still retains all of his other physical attributes. If he punches a giant boulder, he'll shatter his hand. If he wanders into a tundra, he'll get cold. If the Empire State Building falls on him, he'll die horrifically. He still has all these essential traits that exist independently of anyone else, but how can you determine his value if not in relation to someone external (even if that someone is a god)?

I also want to point out that, contrary to your claim that 'value' is not synonymous with 'valid,' when you look up both these words in a dictionary, you find they originate from the exact same Latin root word "valere" meaning to be strong, or well.

Cool. Value is still not synonymous with valid.

It's very possible to do both. The intrinsic value of your words transcends the barriers of subjectivity, at least partially, and I'm able to grasp and respond to your arguments in a way that allows us to reach common ground, use common reasoning skills and draw common conclusions.

Words still don't have intrinsic value. If they do, go copy+paste this entire discussion in an exclusively Quechua-speaking message board and see if they get anything out of it.

Language is a social convention. It's immaterial, extremely malleable, and will change on a whim so long as we're all in agreement about it. It's the most subjective thing in the universe.

I think one misunderstanding is the way in which we use "value." If I write down an integer, it has an objective value regardless of my subjective understanding of that value and, indeed, assigning that integer a numerical value simultaneously describes how I understand the integer (an English word comprised of a series of morphemes that refer to an intangible set of ideas) as well as describing the integer itself (as demonstrated mathematically across language and cultural barriers).

The integer itself, i.e. the communicating of a fact about material reality, doesn't have intrinsic value either. Its value is contingent on its ability to describe reality (or an aspect thereof) - if it can't do that, it's valueless. If I were to simply do this:

"3."

...that has no value. We may recognize it and know what it represents, but it's not communicating anything pertinent or useful in this context. But if you were to ask me a specific question, i.e. what season of 30 Rock are you up to in your re-watch, and I then responded:

"3."

...I communicated something actually meaningful. You acquired specific information. I described something about reality, or at least a specific possible state of a possible reality. If integers had intrinsic value, both of those 3s would have identical meaning regardless of context. But they don't. Context dictates its value, which wouldn't be possible if its value was intrinsic.

On the contrary, it changes everything. I'm not sure what your understanding of God's nature is but it certainly a much smaller and weaker god than the one presented by the Judeo-Christian worldview, who precedes all of creation and is the sole inhabitant of base reality. Thus, if God is the author of existence, He alone is fit to judge the intrinsic value of any given object, just as the author of a novel is the only one fit to judge the true meaning they're trying to convey with their words.

God may hypothetically fit to best judge something's value, but that value still isn't intrinsic. If anything, the concept of intrinsic value makes less sense under theism. How do you reconcile the concepts of intrinsic human value and Hell? Whether you subscribe to eternal conscious torment or annihilation/eternal sleep makes no difference. If something is valuable - meaningful, useful, desirable, dear, helpful, valid, whatever - where is the sense in discarding it? Do damned souls lose their value, or is god just really bad at asset management?

Oh and on the true meaning of an authour's writing: there's a Christian post-hardcore band called Underoath (you may have heard of them) who with some frequency write about their faith, and I have a friend who is/was a huge fan despite being aggressively anti-theistic. I remember having a discussion with her about their songs, one in particularly she especially loved, which seemed to overtly mention god. I can't recall the specifics but it ended with me basically going "Your interpretation of the lyrics is simply wrong, they literally use the word 'Him' in the lyric book, capital H and all, it's clearly in reference to God" and her response was simply "I don't care, I interpret it differently." The point of this long-winded anecdote being: meaning was found where none was intended, and the intended meaning was disregarded, unwanted and not at all valued. How is that reasonable or possible if meaning was intrinsic? Either the analogy is flawed, or it's valid and undermines your entire argument.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A person's failure to recognize something's intrinsic value is evidence of a failure of comprehension, not the absence of intrinsic value.

Absence of evidence indeed is not evidence of absence. Evidence of incoherence, however, is.

If I refuse to confirm that 2 + 2 = 4, does my indifference to mathematical reasoning destroy the intrinsic relationship between the values conveyed in that equation? Of course not.

No sir it does not, but that's a false equivalence, so it doesn't matter.

Yes, but it's the nebulous nature of these experiences and the subjective nature of these reasons that make it impossible to determine whether abortion is ethical without taking a leap of faith, whether it's faith in oneself or faith in something greater than oneself.

Facts are amoral, meaningless pieces of information without the faith-based value judgments we use to analyze them.

Most nebulous is your use of faith here. I'll obviously concede my position, epistemology, moral compass, and entire perception of reality is imperfect and incomplete - to suggest otherwise would be the height of arrogance - but I don't agree that therefore I'm using "faith". I'm trying to be as practical as possible with the information available to me, and I'm not gonna abandon that because I don't have a 100% completion rate on life. And if you still choose to define that as "faith" then you're basically arguing semantics as far as I'm concerned.

Your parenthetical qualification beautifully demonstrates my point that your entire premise is faith-based, not fact based, which makes it all the more interesting when you claim to act in accordance to the facts. Uncertainty isn't a fact, no matter how ostensible it may appear. The earth was ostensibly flat based on the available "facts" until an influx of new information utterly demolished this geological paradigm.

See above.

My parenthetical qualifier demonstrates basic intellectual honesty.

You also seem to be neglecting the fact that humans are just as much products of their nurture as their nature. If I abuse and starve my child, I've literally stripped him of his autonomy over his own body and imposed my own will on him. The control he has over himself is an illusion that is immediately shattered when I demonstrate that my decisions are what hold his life in the balance, not his own.

If, then, a person's autonomy can be stripped at any given moment by a stronger adversary, we only have two options. We must either affirm that autonomy belongs only to those strong and fit enough to impose their own will on others or, conversely, we must affirm that we hold these truths to be self-evident and irrevocable: that all humans are endowed by their Creator with intrinsic value and, as a direct consequence, the inalienable rights to life and liberty which no other person can deprive them of, no matter their developmental stage.

How then are we defining autonomy? If we're using the definition of autonomy laid out in this quote, then yes autonomy "belongs" - in that it can be seized at will - only to those strong and fit enough to take it. Such things actually do happen with unfortunate frequency in real life as we're all aware. Simply acknowledging that fact is not affirming its moral superiority.

I, however, was using the word in a way that was sort of colloquially synonymous with (free) will, or immediate control over one's actions. In your hypothetical, using my definition, the child is still autonomous in that he's still in control of his faculties, he's just been severely stripped of options and placed in a much harsher environment. Under your definition, one could argue that no one is autonomous, especially given that you're a theist - god holds all our lives in his hands, therefore none of us have autonomy. (Note this isn't an argument for predeterminism or anything, just that hypothetically god could send another flood right now if he wanted.)

Your criteria for ownership are weak. If I borrow your car for a road trip, I can reap all of the benefits it has to offer without claiming ownership. Similarly, if I crash it into a tree, I can experience the direct effects of impact but the overarching consequences of my actions are going to be far more significant for you as the owner of the vehicle.

Stewardship =/= Ownership

But you don't necessarily have exclusive stewardship of that car. You could return it, you could sell it, have it stolen, lose it in a giant parking lot, donate it to a Michael Bay film to have it blown up, etc. Any number of things could happen to separate you from the car, where then you and it would continue on independently. The car can be operated by multiple entities - you, however, can't.

I'm pretty sure this premise is the foundation of all societal laws related to ownership and intellectual property. Whether tangible or intangible, someone is only said to own something if they have a legitimate preexisting claim to the object or idea in question. If God is the source of creation, we are merely stewards of our own bodies.

In short, "I think therefore I am" does not lay the logical foundation for "I think therefore I am my own."

Yeah, in legal matters. Those laws and the laws of physics don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

You say a person's status doesn't matter when answering if abortion is ethical, I say the distinction between a person's development doesn't matter when answering the same question. The obfuscation comes in thinking that either of our opinions can somehow escape the realm of faith.

No definition of faith is relevant here. A fully grown human and a human fetus are still wildly different in a myriad of ways. Simply not acknowledging this isn't an argument and is quite disingenuous. It's like arguing humans are the same as seahorses since we're both chordates. While technically true, it's also grossly oversimplified.

Even if we allow for this qualitative distinction, who is the ultimate judge when it comes to determining which stage of development is worth preserving and which stage is disposable? Why 24 weeks and not 25 or 23?

Truthfully I don't know quite enough about fetal development to corroborate the reasoning behind the 24-week delineation, but that specifically isn't necessarily an issue I'm trying to address.

What if, in placing relevance on the potentiality of the person and not the actuality, the choice is made to preserve a child who later cures cancer, unlocks the secrets of harnessing fusion or discovers a cost-effective means of desalinating ocean water? If you snuff out that life without ever seeing what becomes of it, you've placed yourself in the position of God and determined that the benefit of saving this life could never outweigh the benefit that comes from destroying it, when this assumption is patently false.

Hitler + Stalin + 6 Pol Pot quintuplets = should've aborted.

This is faith, not fact.

Sure, faith. Specifically faith in all the presently available information. Call it whatever you want, you're arguing semantics and still flirting with solipsism.

So I refuted their completely subjective, useless and unworkable arguments by utilizing my own subjective (and therefore useless and unworkable) arguments? What about jihadists, whose worldview is shaped not by the subjective philosophy of an obscure German atheist but from what they believe is the direct revelation of their god Allah to the prophet Muhammad? If what they say happened truly happened and Sharia law is, in fact, the objective measure of good and evil (or benefit/harm), how exactly do you oppose such a position without resorting to similar faith-based reasoning?

Without an objective observer to ground one's understanding of reality, how can one ever achieve an objective perspective?

Since I know you understand this "faith-based reasoning" argument goes both ways, you realize repeatedly pointing that out isn't a service to you, yes? We're both arguing from """""faith""""" (yes, with 10 quotation marks). No one is purporting to have a perfectly objective perception of reality, and if you ever got that impression from me, well I didn't think I'd have to make clear that I wasn't omniscient ('cause I'm certain I'd know if I was /a joke to lighten the mood). Like I've said numerous times, we try to do the best with what's available to us. Knowing we don't know everything there is to know is a really terrible reason to abandon all attempts at argumentation and discerning reality.

No, because solipsism itself is fatally flawed. If one postulates that the self is the only thing that can be known, they fail to account for how one can truly know that the self is the only thing that can be known. This is self-deception in its most basic form.

The only thing a person can say with any certainty is that they don't know anything and must, instead, choose to operate according to evidence-based axioms that ultimately hinge on faith in the axiom itself.

I'm glad you said that, but you're still constantly, gently appealing to it even if you don't mean to.

If God exists, this is the only option worth considering. Everything else is noise.

Even under theism, does that make a difference? Isn't one of the main tenets of your faith that humans are innately flawed? Under Christianity, literally by definition this time, a flawless perception of reality is outright impossible (at least in this life).

But what happens if you can't observe the dramatically harmful societal effect of a culture that has systematically destroyed 50+ million unborn children within your own lifetime? What if it takes one, two or three generations to manifest? If the effect echoes through the passage of time in a multitude of directions that were previously unknown to you, the supposed benefits of the cause is propped up by a false, overly simplistic narrative.

If you can't observe something, then you're perfectly justified in not a) forming an opinion on it, b) taking action for/against it. If this harm ever begins to manifest, then we'll talk. But until then: Hitler + Stalin + etc.

Even if our observations appear to be fairly consistent and reliable, this does nothing to ensure that they're comprehensive or maximally beneficial. Lurking variables always exist and data that seems all-encompassing (not to mention emotional bias in interpreting the data) can easily skew one's understanding of reality. Case in point, the U.S. military issued cigarettes as a standard ration to soldiers up until 1975, weighing the short-term benefit of increased focus and psychological comfort over any perceived physical hazards. Yet, in doing so, they actively contributed to an entire generation's addiction to cigarettes, the normalization (and, in many instances, glorification) of tobacco consumption that would influence future generations, the introduction of heart disease, emphyzema and cancer on a massive scale as well as the negative health effects experienced by the tens of millions exposed to second-hand smoke.

Yup, and until the harms of smoking were discovered, it would've been asinine to suggest as much. There's a difference between what's true and what is known, and the former can't be banked on until it becomes the latter. Otherwise [insert reductio ad absurdum here]. What if listening to music through in-ear headphones means your offspring 12 generations from now will be born without a face? Better put those iPods away just to be safe.

By definition, something can only be good if it possesses the qualities required for a particular role. Without perfect knowledge, we can neither know the objective role of a given thing nor the qualities required for that role to be fulfilled. The best we can do is make an educated guess.

Thus, the question of "Is abortion ethical?" is impossible to answer without first answering the question "Does God exist?" and even then, we are ultimately forced to accept this answer as a proposition of faith, regardless of religious persuasion.

And I'm perfectly content with educated guesses (...well, relatively speaking), because it's the best we've got.

And if we're forced to accept any answer on """"""faith"""""" (that's 12 quotations marks this time), then what even the point of this? If you're arguing that epistemic circularity is not only unavoidable (which I'd agree with) but in a sense also debilitating and immobilizing, then... seriously why bother? Appealing to said problem as strongly and consistently as you do is self-defeating 'cause it negates the whole point of even discussing this in the first place.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Hitler + Stalin + 6 Pol Pot quintuplets = should've aborted.

I kind of take issue with the idea that Hitler etc. should have been aborted.

There were zero possible ways to know they would have turned out that way and there still aren't ways to tell how a child will develop emotionally and psychologically.

Everyone has the potential to do something good in the world just as they can do bad.

It's a combination of things that makes a person who they are.

 

[Whia]

I kind of take issue with the idea that Hitler etc. should have been aborted.

There were zero possible ways to know they would have turned out that way and there still aren't ways to tell how a child will develop emotionally and psychologically.

Everyone has the potential to do something good in the world just as they can do bad.

It's a combination of things that makes a person who they are.

Yeah that's the point though. We shouldn't be basing these decisions on such speculation because 1) it's ultimately pointless, and 2) the reasoning is applicable to both sides.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yeah that's the point though. We shouldn't be basing these decisions on such speculation because 1) it's ultimately pointless, and 2) the reasoning is applicable to both sides.

I find the good potential to have more value in an arguement than the reverse.

People being around will provide value of some degree, if they turn out bad we gotta fix that and learn from it.

 

[Whia]

I find the good potential to have more value in an arguement than the reverse.

People being around will provide value of some degree, if they turn out bad we gotta fix that and learn from it.

Perhaps, but even if I concede that, it then becomes a question of whether the trade off is worth it, and moreover the necessity of it. Would this person provide so much value that their absence would represent a significant depression in someone's quality of life, especially to the point where infringing on someone else's freedom of choice becomes worth it? In other words, what value could be found in this individual person that can't already be found elsewhere in relative abundance? And of course how would you ever make this determination?

 

[omgliekkewl]

So in other words: we don't have access to all data, so let's not attempt making determinations based on current data.

On the contrary, the current data is sufficient to make the case that abortion is not ethical. The point, however, is that any attempt to wield the data to defend whether or not something is ethical necessarily requires the use of philosophy and metaphysics.

And what if you let the next Hitler live, who then married a female Stalin, and had 6 sets of Pol Pot quintuplets. If you're gonna make essentially the "let's err on the side of caution" argument, that door swings both ways. As far as pro-life/choice arguments go, this is as shallow as it gets.

The only reason why allowing the next Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to be born seems so repulsive is because they rejected the intrinsic value of human life. You cannot simultaneously use their heinous disregard for humanity to defend the sanctity of life while defending a position that has destroyed more lives than all of those dictators combined.

It is more ethical (read: more beneifical) to allow the tares to mingle and grow with the wheat and to separate everything during the harvest than to never plant anything, never grow anything and never harvest anything.

Not to mention, there's a certain irony in you indulging in such wild* speculation having just immediately prior decried the practice of making decisions based on incomplete data.

Exactly.

As in, not making the decision to kill an unborn child based on incomplete data once the decision to have sex has already been made.

*And yes, it is wild speculation. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people are incredibly unremarkable, so that particular hypothetical scenario is so utterly farfetched so as to be of extremely minimal significance.

The fact is, everything highlighted in read is a statement of faith.

If there was some kind of prenatal test for changing-the-world-for-the-better-ism, then sure. But alas, no such luck.

It's called a pregnancy test.

Words don't have intrinsic value either. That's so much more nonsensical than saying life has it.

Does this mean all of your replies thus far amount to a heap of nonsense?

And meaning is exactly as subjective, and no more intrinsic, than value. If these are inherent, objective properties of things, then how is it measured?

For thousands of years we had no way of measuring an atom. Did our inability somehow strip the atom of its objective properties?

What metric or method can be used to demonstrate any given object has meaning or value, and moreover how much value it has?

The same could be asked about consciousness. Does our limited understanding of how to quantify consciousness negate its objective properties?

How can you demonstrate these things in a way that is definitive and objective? Mass, for example, is an inherent property of something - there's nothing subjective or negotiable about the fact that the Empire State Building weighs more than a newborn puppy.

Words are the connective tissue of ideas, which are objective facets of consciousness. Ideas are bound by laws of logic in the same way that atoms are bound by laws of physics, allowing them to be objectively testable on both the physical and metaphysical planes.

A simple test of the objective value of words would be observing the accuracy of a facial composite rendered by a police sketch artist. If words had zero intrinsic value, we would expect the artist to be just as likely to draw a towering skyscraper or an adorable puppy upon hearing the description of the suspect. Instead, by asking a series of simple questions and sketching the information relayed through the words of the witness, the artist is able to determine eye shape, bone structure, pigmentation, scars, tattoos, facial hair and a variety of other details that bear remarkable resemblance to a person they've never even seen.

Here's a thought experiment of my own: in a hypothetical universe with no life save one lone human being (plucked from our universe, so physically he remains completely unchanged) and nothing else - no other animals, no resources with which one could potentially use to live comfortably, albeit in solitude, and definitely no god. He's cared about by no one, he can't offer anything to anyone, there's no facet of his existence which provides any use to anything or anyone. He is utterly solitary. What objective value can you say this person has and how did you make that determination? Because again, he still retains all of his other physical attributes. If he punches a giant boulder, he'll shatter his hand. If he wanders into a tundra, he'll get cold. If the Empire State Building falls on him, he'll die horrifically. He still has all these essential traits that exist independently of anyone else, but how can you determine his value if not in relation to someone external (even if that someone is a god)?

If there is no creator and the human simply exists by accident, there is no objective value, which is to say there is no objective. Objectives are only established by conscious agents who exercises their will in bringing something into existence and therefore must be determined externally.

Keeping that in mind, the hypothetical human being did not come into existence accidentally, but is product of your own imagination. You, as the creator of this thought experiment, have conjured up an entire fake universe and populated it with a fake person, a fake boulder and a fake Empire State Building complete with fake physical laws. As a consequence of your creative act of thinking and writing Mr. Nobody into being, you unwittingly instilled Mr. Nobody with objective value by using his fake existence as intellectual leverage in our discussion.

Yes, you subjectively conjured up a fake person without value, but you did so within an objectively real universe to communicate with an objectively real person using an objectively real rhetorical device. To negate the objective value of the meaningless existence you've provided Mr. Nobody is to destroy the explanatory power of the thought experiment, depriving your argument of its potency.

Cool. Value is still not synonymous with valid.

Cause is not synonymous with effect, yet they cannot exist without each other. Value and validity are no different.

Words still don't have intrinsic value. If they do, go copy+paste this entire discussion in an exclusively Quechua-speaking message board and see if they get anything out of it.

It's precisely because words have intrinsic value that hundreds of different languages and dialects can be translated and understood by non-native speakers. Even if the words themselves are subjectively determined, they represent something concrete and non-negotiable. Thus, while "one plus one is two" may not make sense to a Spanish speaker, this is due to a scarcity of information, not because English is somehow subjectively describing the relationship between these numbers. Similarly, it's because of the objective value of these words that they can be translated into "uno mas uno es dos" and understood by the Spanish speaker, thereby conserving the objective information conveyed by both statements.

Language is a social convention.

So is science, yet you seem to trust it just fine.

It's immaterial, extremely malleable, and will change on a whim so long as we're all in agreement about it. It's the most subjective thing in the universe.

Tell that to the British and Polish codebreakers who used cryptanalysis to decipher German communications and essentially win the war based on the actionable intelligence gleaned from the intrinsically valuable information embedded in these codes.

The integer itself, i.e. the communicating of a fact about material reality, doesn't have intrinsic value either. Its value is contingent on its ability to describe reality (or an aspect thereof) - if it can't do that, it's valueless. If I were to simply do this:

"3."

...that has no value. We may recognize it and know what it represents, but it's not communicating anything pertinent or useful in this context. But if you were to ask me a specific question, i.e. what season of 30 Rock are you up to in your re-watch, and I then responded:

"3."

...I communicated something actually meaningful. You acquired specific information. I described something about reality, or at least a specific possible state of a possible reality. If integers had intrinsic value, both of those 3s would have identical meaning regardless of context. But they don't. Context dictates its value, which wouldn't be possible if its value was intrinsic.

Context dictates the 3s usefulness, not its existence. It doesn't matter if I ask you for 3 fish in Spanish or whether you ask me how many inches are in 3 feet in morse code, there are objectively correct responses to these requests that transcend language precisely because 3 is always 3.

God may hypothetically fit to best judge something's value, but that value still isn't intrinsic. If anything, the concept of intrinsic value makes less sense under theism.

If God exists, He embodies everything that is of value. Without Him there can be no existence and thus no concept of value. Thus, anything He creates has a value that He has determined according to His will.

Thus, if God says that He made man in His image, this means we, humanity, are literally reflections of the most valuable thing imaginable. It's no less a part of us than David's slingshot and fierce gaze are part of his enormous stone frame.

How do you reconcile the concepts of intrinsic human value and Hell? Whether you subscribe to eternal conscious torment or annihilation/eternal sleep makes no difference. If something is valuable - meaningful, useful, desirable, dear, helpful, valid, whatever - where is the sense in discarding it? Do damned souls lose their value, or is god just really bad at asset management?

If hell is full of people who, exercising their God-given free will, have denied the intrinsic value of human life in their thoughts and actions, it seems perfectly consistent for God to exclude them from His presence. It not only respects the person's decision to exist apart from Him, thereby affirming the intrinsic value God places on human autonomy, but it also serves to protect those who do value life by ensuring they are not threatened by those who seek to destroy it.

This is the same basic ethical reconciliation that justifies capital punishment, self defense and just war.

Oh and on the true meaning of an authour's writing: there's a Christian post-hardcore band called Underoath (you may have heard of them) who with some frequency write about their faith, and I have a friend who is/was a huge fan despite being aggressively anti-theistic. I remember having a discussion with her about their songs, one in particularly she especially loved, which seemed to overtly mention god. I can't recall the specifics but it ended with me basically going "Your interpretation of the lyrics is simply wrong, they literally use the word 'Him' in the lyric book, capital H and all, it's clearly in reference to God" and her response was simply "I don't care, I interpret it differently." The point of this long-winded anecdote being: meaning was found where none was intended, and the intended meaning was disregarded, unwanted and not at all valued. How is that reasonable or possible if meaning was intrinsic? Either the analogy is flawed, or it's valid and undermines your entire argument.

The analogy is flawed in that God is infinite and creates ex nihilo while humans are finite and can only create from that which already exists. Thus, God's creation is not up to interpretation because He's literally the only one present to interpret it.

The works of humanity, however, are subject to irrational bias that blatantly disregard the meaning (AKA intrinsic value) instilled in the work by the creator, as evidenced by your friend's "I don't care." I mean, you can tell me that Michelangelo's David isn't representative of the Biblical character David until you're blue in the face, but repeatedly denying that reality will never make it so.

Absence of evidence indeed is not evidence of absence. Evidence of incoherence, however, is.

The ball is in your court to demonstrate this supposed incoherence, otherwise your empty accusations are merely evidence of bulverism.

As an aside, how does one formulate a coherent argument with language which has no intrinsic value? How can you ever determine what "coherent" even means if the word itself is devoid of any objective meaning?

No sir it does not, but that's a false equivalence, so it doesn't matter.

It matters as far as it's no different than your friend denying the intended meaning of Underoath's lyrics and supposing her interpretation has any bearing on what is objectively true.

Most nebulous is your use of faith here. I'll obviously concede my position, epistemology, moral compass, and entire perception of reality is imperfect and incomplete - to suggest otherwise would be the height of arrogance - but I don't agree that therefore I'm using "faith". I'm trying to be as practical as possible with the information available to me, and I'm not gonna abandon that because I don't have a 100% completion rate on life. And if you still choose to define that as "faith" then you're basically arguing semantics as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not advocating you abandon your beliefs because there exists a shred of doubt, I'm advocating you pause and question them more rigorously in the event that they're utterly wrong, impractical, incoherent and self-defeating, especially when it pertains to making a life or death decision about another human being.

Perhaps your hangups re: theism are a result of ignorance, not incoherence. If there are good, coherent, valid answers to your questions, what reason do you have in rejecting God's existence? Does your failure to find these answers necessarily mean they don't exist?

How then are we defining autonomy? If we're using the definition of autonomy laid out in this quote, then yes autonomy "belongs" - in that it can be seized at will - only to those strong and fit enough to take it. Such things actually do happen with unfortunate frequency in real life as we're all aware. Simply acknowledging that fact is not affirming its moral superiority.

I, however, was using the word in a way that was sort of colloquially synonymous with (free) will, or immediate control over one's actions. In your hypothetical, using my definition, the child is still autonomous in that he's still in control of his faculties, he's just been severely stripped of options and placed in a much harsher environment. Under your definition, one could argue that no one is autonomous, especially given that you're a theist - god holds all our lives in his hands, therefore none of us have autonomy. (Note this isn't an argument for predeterminism or anything, just that hypothetically god could send another flood right now if he wanted.)

The point isn't that autonomy doesn't exist, it's that complete autonomy is an illusion. When you make yourself the judge of what does and what doesn't constitute "enough" autonomy to deem something salvageable instead of disposable, you set yourself up as God. Arbitrarily deciding that an unborn child isn't autonomous enough to value at week 23 is no different that me arbitrarily deciding that a grown man who still lives with his parents isn't autonomous enough to value at year 23.

But you don't necessarily have exclusive stewardship of that car. You could return it, you could sell it, have it stolen, lose it in a giant parking lot, donate it to a Michael Bay film to have it blown up, etc. Any number of things could happen to separate you from the car, where then you and it would continue on independently. The car can be operated by multiple entities - you, however, can't.

This assumes demonic possession doesn't exist, despite cross-cultural observance of such a phenomenon. If people are literally possessed by a spiritual entity, they not only can be operated by said entity, but they physically lose ownership over their own being, at least temporarily.

Yeah, in legal matters. Those laws and the laws of physics don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

If both sets of laws are established by God, both are His intellectual property.

No definition of faith is relevant here. A fully grown human and a human fetus are still wildly different in a myriad of ways. Simply not acknowledging this isn't an argument and is quite disingenuous. It's like arguing humans are the same as seahorses since we're both chordates. While technically true, it's also grossly oversimplified.

Yes, and a fully grown adult is wildly different than a child or a senior citizen or someone with Trisomy 21. I have no problem acknowledging the difference, I just refuse to acknowledge that the difference is a valid reason to kill someone.

Truthfully I don't know quite enough about fetal development to corroborate the reasoning behind the 24-week delineation, but that specifically isn't necessarily an issue I'm trying to address.

Seems like a pretty important point to overlook when trying to determine whether abortion is ethical.

Hitler + Stalin + 6 Pol Pot quintuplets = should've aborted.

Wheat and tares.

Sure, faith. Specifically faith in all the presently available information. Call it whatever you want, you're arguing semantics and still flirting with solipsism.

Your contention that your decisions are based on all the presently available information is, in and of itself, a statement of faith. This is what circular reasoning looks like.

Since I know you understand this "faith-based reasoning" argument goes both ways, you realize repeatedly pointing that out isn't a service to you, yes?

It's a service to both of us if one of us can demonstrate that coherence of the other's faith crumbles under scrutiny while simultaneously defending the coherence of our own faith under similar scrutiny.

We're both arguing from """""faith""""" (yes, with 10 quotation marks). No one is purporting to have a perfectly objective perception of reality, and if you ever got that impression from me, well I didn't think I'd have to make clear that I wasn't omniscient ('cause I'm certain I'd know if I was /a joke to lighten the mood). Like I've said numerous times, we try to do the best with what's available to us. Knowing we don't know everything there is to know is a really terrible reason to abandon all attempts at argumentation and discerning reality.

What if the only way to properly discern reality is to put one's faith in the discernment of something greater than ourselves? What if God has spoken to humanity and made His will apparent? What then?

Even under theism, does that make a difference? Isn't one of the main tenets of your faith that humans are innately flawed? Under Christianity, literally by definition this time, a flawless perception of reality is outright impossible (at least in this life).

For man, this is impossible. For the Son of God, however, all things are possible, including perfect, unbroken and objective knowledge of what is and isn't ethical.

If you can't observe something, then you're perfectly justified in not a) forming an opinion on it, b) taking action for/against it. If this harm ever begins to manifest, then we'll talk. But until then: Hitler + Stalin + etc.

Knowingly taking another life is harmful enough. Being ignorant of additional harm does not wash one's hands of the moral responsibility originally inflicted on the unborn child.

Yup, and until the harms of smoking were discovered, it would've been asinine to suggest as much. There's a difference between what's true and what is known, and the former can't be banked on until it becomes the latter. Otherwise [insert reductio ad absurdum here]. What if listening to music through in-ear headphones means your offspring 12 generations from now will be born without a face? Better put those iPods away just to be safe.

Shoot first, ask questions later. Sounds ethical to me.

And I'm perfectly content with educated guesses (...well, relatively speaking), because it's the best we've got.

Thinking it's the best we've got is a position of faith. We've got Jesus and the Bible.

And if we're forced to accept any answer on """"""faith"""""" (that's 12 quotations marks this time), then what even the point of this? If you're arguing that epistemic circularity is not only unavoidable (which I'd agree with) but in a sense also debilitating and immobilizing, then... seriously why bother? Appealing to said problem as strongly and consistently as you do is self-defeating 'cause it negates the whole point of even discussing this in the first place.

I'm establishing common ground, paralyzing as it may feel. If we both recognize how finite, imperfect and subjective our opinions are, we inoculate ourselves from logical fallacies that arise from carelessness, pride or emotional bias and, in doing so, I force the issue of grappling with the God question. This is the only way to move forward in any debate re: ethics and the question of abortion is no different.

If we don't adequately grapple with the question of God's existence, we are no better than grandiloquent fools who like to hear the sound of our own voice and derive pleasure from ensnaring our opponents with esoteric appeals to logic rather than straining together towards the truth of these matters, regardless of our pride or what we may have invested in our preconceived answers.

 

[Whia]

On the contrary, the current data is sufficient to make the case that abortion is not ethical. The point, however, is that any attempt to wield the data to defend whether or not something is ethical necessarily requires the use of philosophy and metaphysics.

Depends on which data points we're using, how specifically we're applying them, and how you're defining ethical. One thing is certain though, there is no data to support the notion that life is intrinsically valuable.

The only reason why allowing the next Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to be born seems so repulsive is because they rejected the intrinsic value of human life. You cannot simultaneously use their heinous disregard for humanity to defend the sanctity of life while defending a position that has destroyed more lives than all of those dictators combined.

Correction: the subjective value of human life. Let's frame your quote here as a syllogism:

P1: If life is intrinsically valuable, genocide will inspire universal repulsion
P2: Genocide inspired universal repulsion
C: Therefore, life is intrinsically valuable

Which while sound, is false, because genocide did not universally inspire repulsion because not everyone valued the lives that were lost.

By the way, don't call that syllogism a strawman because I plugged in the word "universally". If value was intrinsic, a universal reaction would necessarily follow.

It is more ethical (read: more beneifical) to allow the tares to mingle and grow with the wheat and to separate everything during the harvest than to never plant anything, never grow anything and never harvest anything.

False analogy for a number of reasons. For starters, humans aren't crops. Secondly, in order for this analogy to work, there needs to be a hypothetical scenario in which forcing a farmer to grow and harvest all his crops is markedly harmful - you never attempted to construct such a thing. Thirdly, why is the word "never" being used? No one's arguing all babies should be aborted, so the usage of its exact negation is a strawman.

Exactly.

As in, not making the decision to kill an unborn child based on incomplete data once the decision to have sex has already been made.

Or alternatively, not forcing a woman against her will to carry a baby to term because it miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight change the world.

The fact is, everything highlighted in read is a statement of faith.

No, not really. Those are all demonstrable facts. The ratio of human beings to world-changing discoveries and innovations is pretty massive.

It's called a pregnancy test.

So Hitler changed the world for the better according to this woefully off-the-mark, snarky reply. Noted.

Does this mean all of your replies thus far amount to a heap of nonsense?

It would if intrinsic and subjective were synonyms. But they aren't, so it doesn't.

For thousands of years we had no way of measuring an atom. Did our inability somehow strip the atom of its objective properties?

No, but it does mean that until the atom was discovered, it would be asinine to make statements about the nature of it, which is why it typically wasn't done. People only started doing that until it could be measured. Perhaps you should take a page from their book.

The same could be asked about consciousness. Does our limited understanding of how to quantify consciousness negate its objective properties?

No, but until we understand its objective properties, it would be asinine to make statements about them.

Words are the connective tissue of ideas, which are objective facets of consciousness. Ideas are bound by laws of logic in the same way that atoms are bound by laws of physics, allowing them to be objectively testable on both the physical and metaphysical planes.

Okay, with all due respect, what does this even mean and how is it relevant? Words are not the connective tissue of ideas because ideas can be communicated without words. "Ideas are objective facets of consciousness" is true but only in the most trivial sense - you just dressed up saying "brains have thoughts". The rest of what you wrote here is just... what? Yeah, ideas are bound by the laws of logic; atoms are bound by the laws of physics; and any thought anyone has is potentially falsifiable and verifiable. How does anything you said have anything to do with what you responded to?

A simple test of the objective value of words would be observing the accuracy of a facial composite rendered by a police sketch artist. If words had zero intrinsic value, we would expect the artist to be just as likely to draw a towering skyscraper or an adorable puppy upon hearing the description of the suspect. Instead, by asking a series of simple questions and sketching the information relayed through the words of the witness, the artist is able to determine eye shape, bone structure, pigmentation, scars, tattoos, facial hair and a variety of other details that bear remarkable resemblance to a person they've never even seen.

Intrinsic ≠ subjective. Bring a guy who speaks no English to an English-only precinct and see how intrinsically valuable his words are.

If there is no creator and the human simply exists by accident, there is no objective value, which is to say there is no objective. Objectives are only established by conscious agents who exercises their will in bringing something into existence and therefore must be determined externally.

You're conflating multiple definitions of objective. Lose the equivocation fallacy.

Keeping that in mind, the hypothetical human being did not come into existence accidentally, but is product of your own imagination. You, as the creator of this thought experiment, have conjured up an entire fake universe and populated it with a fake person, a fake boulder and a fake Empire State Building complete with fake physical laws. As a consequence of your creative act of thinking and writing Mr. Nobody into being, you unwittingly instilled Mr. Nobody with objective value by using his fake existence as intellectual leverage in our discussion.

Yes, you subjectively conjured up a fake person without value, but you did so within an objectively real universe to communicate with an objectively real person using an objectively real rhetorical device. To negate the objective value of the meaningless existence you've provided Mr. Nobody is to destroy the explanatory power of the thought experiment, depriving your argument of its potency

Okay, so, in other words, you couldn't find a way to demonstrate this man's value without referencing someone external, namely us.

Throughout all of this, you have completely failed to provide a metric by which to determine and measure value in a non-subjective way.

Cause is not synonymous with effect, yet they cannot exist without each other. Value and validity are no different.

"Relying on each other for existence" is not the definition of synonymous.

It's precisely because words have intrinsic value that hundreds of different languages and dialects can be translated and understood by non-native speakers. Even if the words themselves are subjectively determined, they represent something concrete and non-negotiable. Thus, while "one plus one is two" may not make sense to a Spanish speaker, this is due to a scarcity of information, not because English is somehow subjectively describing the relationship between these numbers. Similarly, it's because of the objective value of these words that they can be translated into "uno mas uno es dos" and understood by the Spanish speaker, thereby conserving the objective information conveyed by both statements.

If words had intrinsic value, the translation would not be necessary because the original, untranslated statement would be as valuable to the non-native speaker as the translated one. That it needs to be translated at all illustrates my point.

Maybe you're conflating "words" with the concept of communication itself. If that's what you're doing... stop doing that.

So is science, yet you seem to trust it just fine.

Indeed I do. My argument was never "language is a social convention, therefore it is untrustworthy." So, yeah, totally. I trust science and I trust language, they're both human inventions, etc. Awesomesauce.

Tell that to the British and Polish codebreakers who used cryptanalysis to decipher German communications and essentially win the war based on the actionable intelligence gleaned from the intrinsically valuable information embedded in these codes.

Subjectively valuable. If the information was intrinsically valuable, it'd be valuable in the same way no matter what circumstances it was found under. It was valuable to them because they required it as a means to an end they were pursuing. If instead someone wrote this information down on a piece of paper, crumpled it up and hid it under a rock on a beach only to be found decades later by some random kid picking up rocks to throw in the water, he'd probably toss the paper with it. Strange way to treat something intrinsically valuable.

Context dictates the 3s usefulness, not its existence. It doesn't matter if I ask you for 3 fish in Spanish or whether you ask me how many inches are in 3 feet in morse code, there are objectively correct responses to these requests that transcend language precisely because 3 is always 3.

Yeah except weren't talking about existence or correctness, we were talking about usefulness.

If God exists, He embodies everything that is of value. Without Him there can be no existence and thus no concept of value. Thus, anything He creates has a value that He has determined according to His will.

Thus, if God says that He made man in His image, this means we, humanity, are literally reflections of the most valuable thing imaginable. It's no less a part of us than David's slingshot and fierce gaze are part of his enormous stone frame.

God's own value is still itself subjective. Nothing in god's nature requires anyone to care about him, his commands, his wishes, his whims, his desires, his anything. Not valuing god is a perfectly logically valid position, even if it's a position that brings upon extreme consequences.

If hell is full of people who, exercising their God-given free will, have denied the intrinsic value of human life in their thoughts and actions, it seems perfectly consistent for God to exclude them from His presence. It not only respects the person's decision to exist apart from Him, thereby affirming the intrinsic value God places on human autonomy, but it also serves to protect those who do value life by ensuring they are not threatened by those who seek to destroy it.

This is the same basic ethical reconciliation that justifies capital punishment, self defense and just war.

You're smuggling so many premises into this post, it's exhausting to keep track of.

• You have not demonstrated value is, or can be, intrinsic.
• Hell, if it exists, is not necessarily full of people who deny intrinsic human value.
• Being at odds with god's determination of value is not evidence of that as god's determinations are still themselves subjective.
• You're assuming any damned soul decided to exist apart from god, which is only possible if god's existence was known, or at least assumed, by this person. The option must necessarily at least be ostensibly available before someone can come to a decision regarding it. But that's not always the case.
• If heaven is an objectively more pleasant option than any alternative, god's decision to deprive someone of it lest he risk violating their autonomy implies that autonomy is the pinnacle determinate of value, which flies dramatically in the face of the pro-life position.

The analogy is flawed in that God is infinite and creates ex nihilo while humans are finite and can only create from that which already exists. Thus, God's creation is not up to interpretation because He's literally the only one present to interpret it.

The works of humanity, however, are subject to irrational bias that blatantly disregard the meaning (AKA intrinsic value) instilled in the work by the creator, as evidenced by your friend's "I don't care." I mean, you can tell me that Michelangelo's David isn't representative of the Biblical character David until you're blue in the face, but repeatedly denying that reality will never make it so.

You're conflating the nature of an object with the meaning of an object. What Michelangelo's David is has nothing to do with what it may mean to someone.

You're basically conflating multiple definitions of the word meaning. Intended message ≠ personal importance.

The ball is in your court to demonstrate this supposed incoherence, otherwise your empty accusations are merely evidence of bulverism.

I have. It's a contradiction in terms, plain and simple, and your previous attempt to demonstrate otherwise was self-defeating.

Valuable literally means "useful or important". "Usefulness" and "importance" are subjective and contingent. Something cannot be subjective/contingent and intrinsic at the same time.

As an aside, how does one formulate a coherent argument with language which has no intrinsic value? How can you ever determine what "coherent" even means if the word itself is devoid of any objective meaning?

Subjective ≠ intrinsic.

And I think you're also conflating language with concepts (which aren't intrinsically valuable either, but they're more valuable than the language used to describe them.)

It matters as far as it's no different than your friend denying the intended meaning of Underoath's lyrics and supposing her interpretation has any bearing on what is objectively true.

She never supposed her interpretation had any bearing on what is objectively true, that wasn't the point. Her interpretation being wrong wasn't a factor the meaning she derived from it. The nature of something ≠ the meaning of something, or the value one finds in it.

I'm not advocating you abandon your beliefs because there exists a shred of doubt, I'm advocating you pause and question them more rigorously in the event that they're utterly wrong, impractical, incoherent and self-defeating, especially when it pertains to making a life or death decision about another human being.

I have, and for what it's worth, I don't find death to be a big deal in and of itself. In my view, life is only worth living because of what it affords you. A fetus has virtually nothing, has no conception of anything, and won't feel any loss that may befall it.

Just as an aside, by the way, I've never fully understood the aversion to abortion under theism if one assumes salvation awaits them. If aborted fetuses go to heaven, then mass prenatal genocide seems like an extremely noble endeavour.

Perhaps your hangups re: theism are a result of ignorance, not incoherence. If there are good, coherent, valid answers to your questions, what reason do you have in rejecting God's existence? Does your failure to find these answers necessarily mean they don't exist?

If, then none, and I'll convert asap. But I'm not engaging here because I'm not getting roped into an argument about the existence of god unless I absolutely have to.

The point isn't that autonomy doesn't exist, it's that complete autonomy is an illusion. When you make yourself the judge of what does and what doesn't constitute "enough" autonomy to deem something salvageable instead of disposable, you set yourself up as God. Arbitrarily deciding that an unborn child isn't autonomous enough to value at week 23 is no different that me arbitrarily deciding that a grown man who still lives with his parents isn't autonomous enough to value at year 23.

Except we'e not talking about value in a vacuum, we're talking about relative value. If we're using autonomy as a barometer of value, then the 23 year old wins out pretty decisively.

This assumes demonic possession doesn't exist, despite cross-cultural observance of such a phenomenon. If people are literally possessed by a spiritual entity, they not only can be operated by said entity, but they physically lose ownership over their own being, at least temporarily.

You know you could've used disassociative-identity disorder as a less indefensibly absurd example, right? Now that's an interesting discussion.

Yeah I concede the stewardship criteria has grey areas (in extreme circumstances), but what's the alternative? Creator/creation dynamic?

Yes, and a fully grown adult is wildly different than a child or a senior citizen or someone with Trisomy 21. I have no problem acknowledging the difference, I just refuse to acknowledge that the difference is a valid reason to kill someone.

If you were called upon to decide who lives between a child and a senior citizen, all other things being equal, that they're both human doesn't matter because in simply asserting as much you gloss over the myriad differences between them.

That's the point here: we're being called upon to decide between two options, and acknowledging every factor that differentiates one from the other is paramount in making that decision.

Seems like a pretty important point to overlook when trying to determine whether abortion is ethical.

My whole point is that human value isn't intrinsic. That's my primary shtick right now.

Your contention that your decisions are based on all the presently available information is, in and of itself, a statement of faith. This is what circular reasoning looks like.

Replace faith with empiricism. Or simply replace available with known. The point remains the same.

It's a service to both of us if one of us can demonstrate that coherence of the other's faith crumbles under scrutiny while simultaneously defending the coherence of our own faith under similar scrutiny.

May I remind you, you also said this:

"...we are ultimately forced to accept [any] answer as a proposition of faith, regardless of religious persuasion."

Any conclusion anyone comes to can be sloughed off with the "you're still using faith" retort.

What if the only way to properly discern reality is to put one's faith in the discernment of something greater than ourselves? What if God has spoken to humanity and made His will apparent? What then?

Yeah this is solipsism, and you're basically arguing for presuppositionalism as a solution. It doesn't work.

For man, this is impossible. For the Son of God, however, all things are possible, including perfect, unbroken and objective knowledge of what is and isn't ethical.

And we are men, so the question still stands.

Knowingly taking another life is harmful enough. Being ignorant of additional harm does not wash one's hands of the moral responsibility originally inflicted on the unborn child.

Disagreed. In and of itself, what tangible harm is cased by ending the life of an entity who feels nothing?

Remember we're talking about harm here specifically, not necessarily moral value.

Shoot first, ask questions later. Sounds ethical to me.

If by "shoot" you mean "perform an action that is not demonstrably harmful" then yeah, it's ethically neutral at worst.

Thinking it's the best we've got is a position of faith. We've got Jesus and the Bible.

May I remind you, you said this:

"...we are ultimately forced to accept this answer as a proposition of faith, regardless of religious persuasion."

I'm establishing common ground, paralyzing as it may feel. If we both recognize how finite, imperfect and subjective our opinions are, we inoculate ourselves from logical fallacies that arise from carelessness, pride or emotional bias and, in doing so, I force the issue of grappling with the God question. This is the only way to move forward in any debate re: ethics and the question of abortion is no different.

If we don't adequately grapple with the question of God's existence, we are no better than grandiloquent fools who like to hear the sound of our own voice and derive pleasure from ensnaring our opponents with esoteric appeals to logic rather than straining together towards the truth of these matters, regardless of our pride or what we may have invested in our preconceived answers.

I can only sigh.

As counterintuitive as it might sound to you, god's existence is irrelevant here because this is at its core about the definition of a word and the nature of a concept.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Perhaps, but even if I concede that, it then becomes a question of whether the trade off is worth it, and moreover the necessity of it. Would this person provide so much value that their absence would represent a significant depression in someone's quality of life, especially to the point where infringing on someone else's freedom of choice becomes worth it? In other words, what value could be found in this individual person that can't already be found elsewhere in relative abundance? And of course how would you ever make this determination?

Everyone will offer something different, emotions, work, values and providing for others.

You wouldn't know what it would be like with or without someone until they actually exist. I find positive interaction alone to be more worth it than neutral indifference or negative interactions in terms of overall potential and what has more value to all of us.

 

[Whia]

Everyone will offer something different, emotions, work, values and providing for others.

You wouldn't know what it would be like with or without someone until they actually exist. I find positive interaction alone to be more worth it than neutral indifference or negative interactions in terms of overall potential and what has more value to all of us.

So does the value of potential for simple positive interaction outweigh the negative of infringing on someone else's freedom and forcing them to carry a child they don't want to term? Because it doesn't to me, especially because simple positive interaction exists in abundance.

 

[omgliekkewl]

Depends on which data points we're using, how specifically we're applying them, and how you're defining ethical. One thing is certain though, there is no data to support the notion that life is intrinsically valuable.

God's Word is data.

Correction: the subjective value of human life. Let's frame your quote here as a syllogism:

P1: If life is intrinsically valuable, genocide will inspire universal repulsion
P2: Genocide inspired universal repulsion
C: Therefore, life is intrinsically valuable

Which while sound, is false, because genocide did not universally inspire repulsion because not everyone valued the lives that were lost.

When I said "you" in that quote, I was referring directly to you. Not the royal "you," the actual you. It wasn't a universal generalization, nor have I ever argued that something must be universally accepted in order for it to be true.

By the way, don't call that syllogism a strawman because I plugged in the word "universally".

You've said it for me.

If value was intrinsic, a universal reaction would necessarily follow.

False. Intrinsic value exists independent of whether it is understood or embraced by imperfect observers.

False analogy for a number of reasons. For starters, humans aren't crops.

We start as seeds, we grow, we bear fruit, we reproduce, we die.

Secondly, in order for this analogy to work, there needs to be a hypothetical scenario in which forcing a farmer to grow and harvest all his crops is markedly harmful - you never attempted to construct such a thing.

The farmer constructed the Garden of Eden, which was perfect, but the enemy of the farmer chose to sow bad seed in the farmer's field so as to ruin the crop.

Thirdly, why is the word "never" being used? No one's arguing all babies should be aborted, so the usage of its exact negation is a strawman.

Never applies to the wheat that does get uprooted before it has a chance to grow.

Or alternatively, not forcing a woman against her will to carry a baby to term because it miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight change the world.

But it's okay to force her after week 24, right?

No, not really. Those are all demonstrable facts. The ratio of human beings to world-changing discoveries and innovations is pretty massive.

The world is changed from the top down as well as the bottom up. How could there be remarkable people without the unremarkable links in the chain leading to their birth?

So Hitler changed the world for the better according to this woefully off-the-mark, snarky reply. Noted.

Are you saying you're qualified to determine what is and isn't "better"? What Hitler meant for evil, God could have very well repurposed for a greater good.

It would if intrinsic and subjective were synonyms. But they aren't, so it doesn't.

Intrinsic and subjective aren't, but intrinsic and objective are. Since you like syllogisms, I'll use one to demonstrate the self-defeating nature of your argument.

P1: Words have no objective value.
P2: All premises are comprised of words.
C: All premises have no objective value.

No, but it does mean that until the atom was discovered, it would be asinine to make statements about the nature of it, which is why it typically wasn't done. People only started doing that until it could be measured. Perhaps you should take a page from their book.

The atom was postulated based solely on logical principles, which laid the foundation for scientific inquiry for people like Dalton and Brown. Calling this initial inquiry asinine reveals how little you understand about how the philosophy of science informs the scientific method.

No, but until we understand its objective properties, it would be asinine to make statements about them.

It's equally asinine to assign value to a human being if you are incapable of determining its objective value.

Being able to measure something doesn't guarantee we understand its objective properties. Our instruments and our intellect both fail.

Okay, with all due respect, what does this even mean and how is it relevant? Words are not the connective tissue of ideas because ideas can be communicated without words. "Ideas are objective facets of consciousness" is true but only in the most trivial sense - you just dressed up saying "brains have thoughts". The rest of what you wrote here is just... what? Yeah, ideas are bound by the laws of logic; atoms are bound by the laws of physics; and any thought anyone has is potentially falsifiable and verifiable. How does anything you said have anything to do with what you responded to?

You asked how the intrinsic value of words can be demonstrated objectively, I explained that words operate according to laws of logic that establish their truth and thus their reliability. If they are potentially falsifiable and verifiable, by your own admission, they have objective value in that they are vehicles of observational and logical truth.

Intrinsic ≠ subjective. Bring a guy who speaks no English to an English-only precinct and see how intrinsically valuable his words are.

No, intrinsic = objective.

It doesn't matter if a language barrier hinders the non-English speaker, the truth of his account remains intact and is not contingent on which language it's recorded in. You're conflating the extrinsic value of the language the message is recorded in with the intrinsic value of the message itself.

You're conflating multiple definitions of objective. Lose the equivocation fallacy.

I'm using them in tandem. You, on the other hand, are griping about the objective meaning of words while denying that such meaning exists.

Okay, so, in other words, you couldn't find a way to demonstrate this man's value without referencing someone external, namely us.

And you couldn't find a man without value except in your own imagination.

Throughout all of this, you have completely failed to provide a metric by which to determine and measure value in a non-subjective way.

God is the metric. His Word is the measure. He transcends creation, which means his perception of reality is not subject to creation. By default, He is the only objective observer.

"Relying on each other for existence" is not the definition of synonymous.

No, but "closely associated with or suggestive of something" is and describes the relationship between valid and value.

If words had intrinsic value, the translation would not be necessary because the original, untranslated statement would be as valuable to the non-native speaker as the translated one. That it needs to be translated at all illustrates my point.

No, that it can be translated at all illustrates your point is false. Without an intrinsic value to associate with each word, translating it into another language would be impossible.

Maybe you're conflating "words" with the concept of communication itself. If that's what you're doing... stop doing that.

Words are one element of communication, but all forms of communication have intrinsic value, whether it's a mating call, hormone markings, gesticulations or tail wags.

Indeed I do. My argument was never "language is a social convention, therefore it is untrustworthy." So, yeah, totally. I trust science and I trust language, they're both human inventions, etc. Awesomesauce.

Subjective things aren't trustworthy.

Objective things are.

The only way language is trustworthy is if it's able to convey valid ideas. If you grant the existence of valid ideas, you grant the existence of intrinsically valuable language, as valid ideas cannot be expressed apart from valid language.

Subjectively

valuable. If the information was intrinsically valuable, it'd be valuable in the same way no matter what circumstances it was found under. It was valuable to them because they required it as a means to an end they were pursuing. If instead someone wrote this information down on a piece of paper, crumpled it up and hid it under a rock on a beach only to be found decades later by some random kid picking up rocks to throw in the water, he'd probably toss the paper with it. Strange way to treat something intrinsically valuable.

The value remains, regardless of who finds it. The coordinates to German U-Boats at 7pm on January 30, 1940 contain within them the objective location of those boats at a given point in time. This is the objective value. What people did with this information is the subjective value.

Yeah except weren't talking about existence or correctness, we were talking about usefulness.

If something exists, it possesses value independent of any observer. Usefulness describes extrinsic value relative to the subject, existence describes intrinsic value relative to the object.

God's own value is still itself subjective.

Infinite knowledge = impartiality.

Nothing in god's nature requires anyone to care about him, his commands, his wishes, his whims, his desires, his anything.

That's because God's nature is love and love does not force itself on other people. The fact that the choice exists does not negate the intrinsic value of the thing being chosen, no more than choosing to walk off a cliff with the conviction that you'll fly negates gravity bringing your body crashing to the ground.

Not valuing god is a perfectly logically valid position, even if it's a position that brings upon extreme consequences.

If God has no value, His creation has no value.

If His creation has no value, you have no value.

If you have no value, your ideas have no value.

If your ideas have no value, "logic", "valid" and "perfect" are meaningless.

You're smuggling so many premises into this post, it's exhausting to keep track of.

• You have not demonstrated value is, or can be, intrinsic.

If God spoke creation into existence, then his Word is intrinsically more valuable than creation itself and His ideas are objectively more real than this simulation we call reality. Similarly, if Jesus cast out demons and calmed raging storms by simply speaking, His words have demonstrable value in that they are not subject to creation, but rather subject creation to the will of the speaker. In other words, they serve an objective function and thus possess objective value.

Meanwhile, you haven't demonstrated that value isn't or can't be intrinsic.

• Hell, if it exists, is not necessarily full of people who deny intrinsic human value.

Hell was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels precisely because they rejected God's moral authority in their attempt to corrupt and utterly destroy humanity; any human being found in such a place will have been judged according to the same criteria. If they reject God's moral authority, corruption and death are sure to follow in the wake of their actions, pointing to a causal relationship between rejecting God and rejecting intrinsic human value.

• Being at odds with god's determination of value is not evidence of that as god's determinations are still themselves subjective.

There is no higher authority than God, so there is nothing for God's thoughts to be subject to. Subjectivity derives its meaning from the notion of being submissive or beholden to something greater than oneself. If there is nothing greater than God, it's logically impossible for His thoughts to be subjective.

• You're assuming any damned soul decided to exist apart from god, which is only possible if god's existence was known, or at least assumed, by this person. The option must necessarily at least be ostensibly available before someone can come to a decision regarding it. But that's not always the case.

If a person never had a chance to come to sufficient knowledge of God, they never have a chance to reject God and therefore never have to fear going to Hell.

Hell is for people who consciously reject God, which is why Jesus says that all blasphemies and sins will be forgiven men, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit AKA the Spirit of Truth. We are only held accountable for what we know, not what we don't know. This is why Jesus, rather than casting Thomas into the fire of hell for his ignorance in not believing he'd risen from the dead, instead appeared to him a week later and insisted he touch the wounds so that, through this influx of new information, he might believe.

• If heaven is an objectively more pleasant option than any alternative, god's decision to deprive someone of it lest he risk violating their autonomy implies that autonomy is the pinnacle determinate of value, which flies dramatically in the face of the pro-life position.

It isn't His decision, it's the person's who is actively rejecting God. Love, peace and joy is only pleasant to someone who values love, peace and joy. If they value hatred, discord and depravity instead, then heaven seems like even greater torture than the misery of their own design.

You're conflating the nature of an object with the meaning of an object. What Michelangelo's David is has nothing to do with what it may mean to someone.

Conflating? I'm pointing out the fundamental relationship between meaning and existence. Something must first exist to be meaningful, both objectively and subjectively.

You're basically conflating multiple definitions of the word meaning. Intended message ≠ personal importance.

And you're hiding behind semantics.

Meaning is defined as what is meant by a word, text, concept or action, so there is no conflation here. Objective meaning is the intended message while subjective meaning is how the message is received and interpreted.

I have. It's a contradiction in terms, plain and simple, and your previous attempt to demonstrate otherwise was self-defeating.

Valuable literally means "useful or important". "Usefulness" and "importance" are subjective and contingent. Something cannot be subjective/contingent and intrinsic at the same time.

You keep beating the same dead horse, but your argument is ultimately spurious.

Usefulness and importance are subjective and contingent to subjective and contingent beings, not the self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent creator of this universe.

And I think you're also conflating language with concepts (which aren't intrinsically valuable either, but they're more valuable than the language used to describe them.)

They're inseparable pieces of consciousness.

She never supposed her interpretation had any bearing on what is objectively true, that wasn't the point. Her interpretation being wrong wasn't a factor the meaning she derived from it. The nature of something ≠ the meaning of something, or the value one finds in it.

Subjective meaning ≠ objective meaning

Subjective truth ≠ objective truth

Subjective value ≠ objective value

Just as an aside, by the way, I've never fully understood the aversion to abortion under theism if one assumes salvation awaits them. If aborted fetuses go to heaven, then mass prenatal genocide seems like an extremely noble endeavour.

It's just as much for the mother, father and society as a whole as it is for the unborn child.

If, then none, and I'll convert asap. But I'm not engaging here because I'm not getting roped into an argument about the existence of god unless I absolutely have to.

You've already engaged. Your failure to remain engaged is indicative of your failure to adequately explore the available evidence.

Except we'e not talking about value in a vacuum, we're talking about relative value.

If God preexists creation, His value judgment literally exist within a vacuum.

If we're using autonomy as a barometer of value, then the 23 year old wins out pretty decisively.

If we're looking to ourselves to discern what is valuable, we're still doing it wrong and nothing of value is gained.

You know you could've used disassociative-identity disorder as a less indefensibly absurd example, right? Now that's an interesting discussion.

Demonic possession deals directly with ownership of one's self.

Yeah I concede the stewardship criteria has grey areas (in extreme circumstances), but what's the alternative? Creator/creation dynamic?

Yes. Back to the concept of intellectual property.

If you were called upon to decide who lives between a child and a senior citizen, all other things being equal, that they're both human doesn't matter because in simply asserting as much you gloss over the myriad differences between them.

This is an irrelevant analogy, as a mother aborting her child rarely ever does so because she fears for her own life.

That's the point here: we're being called upon to decide between two options, and acknowledging every factor that differentiates one from the other is paramount in making that decision.

You can quantify the differences all you want, none of your quantities will ever change the qualitative value instilled in each life.

My whole point is that human value isn't intrinsic. That's my primary shtick right now.

And my whole point is that only God can make this determination.

"...we are ultimately forced to accept [any] answer as a proposition of faith, regardless of religious persuasion."

Any conclusion anyone comes to can be sloughed off with the "you're still using faith" retort.

Blind faith is objectively less coherent than reasoned faith.

Yeah this is solipsism, and you're basically arguing for presuppositionalism as a solution. It doesn't work.

I'm not arguing for it, I'm wondering what happens if it's true.

Disagreed. In and of itself, what tangible harm is cased by ending the life of an entity who feels nothing?

Aside from harming the prospective mother/father, it harms society. Are you familiar with Margaret Sanger's position on eugenics?

If by "shoot" you mean "perform an action that is not demonstrably harmful" then yeah, it's ethically neutral at worst.

More circular reasoning.

I can only sigh.

As counterintuitive as it might sound to you, god's existence is irrelevant here because this is at its core about the definition of a word and the nature of a concept.

I believe you believe this.

It just doesn't make any sense.

I'm happy ending this exchange here as we both seem to have reached a logical impasse. Neither of us can move forward within the other's paradigm of reality, but feel free to respond and we'll see where it takes us.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So does the value of potential for simple positive interaction outweigh the negative of infringing on someone else's freedom and forcing them to carry a child they don't want to term? Because it doesn't to me, especially because simple positive interaction exists in abundance.

I don't think overlap really exists with people in this situation, everyone will have minor differences but everyone gives something different.

I do think those positives outweighs that because birth control exists and I do not sympathize with people using it as a form of birth control because they were irresponsible.

I do think it is a good idea when,

1) It is endangering her life to the point where it is the only option.
2) Grey areas like if **** was involved.

If someone is using it as pseudo birth control, I don't sympathize at all with someone killing a fetus because she didn't decide to be smart about having safe sex.

There are options to prevent it, people should learn to take it.

Mostly what my stance is.

 

[Whia]

God's Word is data.

...not in any even vague way is god's word data. Even if god exists, at best his word communicates data, but can't be data itself.

When I said "you" in that quote, I was referring directly to you. Not the royal "you," the actual you. It wasn't a universal generalization, nor have I ever argued that something must be universally accepted in order for it to be true.

Fair enough, my mistake.

That's empathy for you. What you're describing is still subjective.

Never applies to the wheat that does get uprooted before it has a chance to grow.

Oh yeah, the word "anything" didn't apply either, I forgot to mention that in that post. Still a strawman.

But it's okay to force her after week 24, right?

I never said that.

The world is changed from the top down as well as the bottom up. How could there be remarkable people without the unremarkable links in the chain leading to their birth?

This doesn't address what I said.

Are you saying you're qualified to determine what is and isn't "better"? What Hitler meant for evil, God could have very well repurposed for a greater good.

If this is the direction you're gonna take this in, there's literally no point in having a conversation.

Intrinsic and subjective aren't, but intrinsic and objective are. Since you like syllogisms, I'll use one to demonstrate the self-defeating nature of your argument.

P1: Words have no objective value.
P2: All premises are comprised of words.
C: All premises have no objective value.

Yeah that sounds correct. Objective ≠ subjective. I wonder how many more times I'm gonna have to type out a permutation of that.

The atom was postulated based solely on logical principles, which laid the foundation for scientific inquiry for people like Dalton and Brown. Calling this initial inquiry asinine reveals how little you understand about how the philosophy of science informs the scientific method.

When was the word "postulate" or "inquiry" used before right now? Suggestions ≠ definitive statements.

It's equally asinine to assign value to a human being if you are incapable of determining its objective value.

Disagreed because value is subjective by nature.

Being able to measure something doesn't guarantee we understand its objective properties. Our instruments and our intellect both fail.

Who said anything about guarantees?

You asked how the intrinsic value of words can be demonstrated objectively, I explained that words operate according to laws of logic that establish their truth and thus their reliability. If they are potentially falsifiable and verifiable, by your own admission, they have objective value in that they are vehicles of observational and logical truth.

We value such things because they are useful to us. Again, subjective, not objective.

No, intrinsic = objective.

It doesn't matter if a language barrier hinders the non-English speaker, the truth of his account remains intact and is not contingent on which language it's recorded in. You're conflating the extrinsic value of the language the message is recorded in with the intrinsic value of the message itself.

But if the truth of his account is not communicable, then it's useless, and thus of no value.

I'm using them in tandem. You, on the other hand, are griping about the objective meaning of words while denying that such meaning exists.

Yeah, using them in tandem is what makes it an equivocation fallacy.

And you couldn't find a man without value except in your own imagination.

Because people don't exist in complete solitude in this world. Simply being around other people allows one to provide value. When other people are removed from the equation, that potential disappears, which wouldn't happen if value was intrinsic.

God is the metric. His Word is the measure. He transcends creations, which means his perception of reality is not subject to creation. By default, He is the only objective observer.

"God" is not a metric. What metric does god use? What criteria does something need to fulfil before god makes his determination?

No, but "closely associated with or suggestive of something" is and describes the relationship between valid and value.

Still not the definition of synonymous.

No, that it can be translated at all illustrates your point is false. Without an intrinsic value to associate with each word, translating it into another language would be impossible.

Words are associated with concepts. The value in that is that we all share this world, and so we're all generally familiar with the same set of concepts, for which we've invented words. "Value permits us to translate words" barely even makes sense. Shared experience is what makes translating words possible. If we were to contact a new race, be them a secluded race of humans or an extra-terrestrial race, whose way of life included things we were wholly unfamiliar with, they'd be incapable of communicating those concepts to us until we were introduced to these things themselves.

Words are one element of communication, but all forms of communication have intrinsic value, whether it's a mating call, hormone markings, gesticulations or tail wags.

Unless your attempts at communication are unintelligible. Then they're valueless.

Subjective things aren't trustworthy.

Objective things are.

The only way language is trustworthy is if it's able to convey valid ideas. If you grant the existence of valid ideas, you grant the existence of intrinsically valuable language, as valid ideas cannot be expressed apart from valid language.

Human inventions aren't necessarily subjective. The scientific method, while obviously imperfect, is constructed in such a way so as to attempt to eliminate biases and achieve objectivity - or as close to it as reasonably possible. And before you trot out the "faith" argument again - nobody requires something be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before placing their trust in it, because that's a ridiculous standard to hold to.

The communication of valid ideas is only valuable if we desire information on those ideas. Again, subjective.

The value remains, regardless of who finds it. The coordinates to German U-Boats at 7pm on January 30, 1940 contain within them the objective location of those boats at a given point in time. This is the objective value. What people did with this information is the subjective value.

It has no value if it provides no value. If the possibility of not providing value exists, its value isn't intrinsic.

Is it just me or are we going in circles?

If something exists, it possesses value independent of any observer. Usefulness describes extrinsic value relative to the subject, existence describes intrinsic value relative to the object.

You've yet to demonstrate how.

Infinite knowledge = impartiality.

Being impartial or knowledgable isn't necessarily related with how one may make value judgments because one's value judgments aren't necessarily predicated on the inherent nature of the object.

That's because God's nature is love and love does not force itself on other people. The fact that the choice exists does not negate the intrinsic value of the thing being chosen, no more than choosing to walk off a cliff with the conviction that you'll fly negates gravity bringing your body crashing to the ground.

Okay so you agree then that god's value is subjective and one is free to not value him. Your gravity analogy doesn't work because not valuing gravity is an equally logically coherent position no matter the consequences associated with it. You're conflating the "value" of gravity with the physical properties of gravity. They're not necessarily related, the latter can exist without the former.

If God has no value, His creation has no value.

If His creation has no value, you have no value.

If you have no value, your ideas have no value.

If your ideas have no value, "logic", "valid" and "perfect" are meaningless.

This is just one big composition fallacy. Value is not necessarily assigned in this top-down manner. And value still isn't synonymous with valid. A hypothetically valueless person can have valid ideas.

If God spoke creation into existence, then his Word is intrinsically more valuable than creation itself and His ideas are objectively more real than this simulation we call reality. Similarly, if Jesus cast out demons and calmed raging storms by simply speaking, His words have demonstrable value in that they are not subject to creation, but rather subject creation to the will of the speaker. In other words, they serve an objective function and thus possess objective value.

Meanwhile, you haven't demonstrated that value isn't or can't be intrinsic.

They only serve a function in a scenario where such actions are required. A scenario where they are not is conceivable, and so the value of said actions is contingent on happening in such a scenario where they are. The ability to cast out demons is only valuable if demons exist. Contingent.

Hell was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels precisely because they rejected God's moral authority in their attempt to corrupt and utterly destroy humanity; any human being found in such a place will have been judged according to the same criteria. If they reject God's moral authority, corruption and death are sure to follow in the wake of their actions, pointing to a causal relationship between rejecting God and rejecting intrinsic human value.

The intrinsic value of human life, not to mention god's moral superiority, needs to be demonstrated before any of this follows.

There is no higher authority than God, so there is nothing for God's thoughts to be subject to. Subjectivity derives its meaning from the notion of being submissive or beholden to something greater than oneself. If there is nothing greater than God, it's logically impossible for His thoughts to be subjective.

You're equivocating on the word subjective.

Any entity's own thoughts are subjective by definition. Its thoughts are the product of its perspective. God's perspective informs his opinions. Having a perfect perspective doesn't change that. And having an objective perspective doesn't mean everything one has a perspective on is itself objective. Think of taste in music as an analogy here. God probably finds the band Anal **** unbearable. Does that make them objectively unbearable? Obviously not. Sometimes "objectivity" simply doesn't apply, no matter the perspective.

If a person never had a chance to come to sufficient knowledge of God, they never have a chance to reject God and therefore never have to fear going to Hell.

You ought to take this up with other Christians. Tell them to stop doing missionary work.

It isn't His decision, it's the person's who is actively rejecting God. Love, peace and joy is only pleasant to someone who values love, peace and joy. If they value hatred, discord and depravity instead, then heaven seems like even greater torture than the misery of their own design.

So in this sense then, god is rewarding sinners. Why bother proselytizing then if, no matter what awaits one in the afterlife, per the way god doles out judgment, one will be content with the outcome?

Conflating? I'm pointing out the fundamental relationship between meaning and existence. Something must first exist to be meaningful, both objectively and subjectively.

Yes, conflating. One's potential personal investment in a work of art is not necessarily related to the nature of said work.

And you're hiding behind semantics.

Meaning is defined as what is meant by a word, text, concept or action, so there is no conflation here. Objective meaning is the intended message while subjective meaning is how the message is received and interpreted.

Yeah that's what I said.

You keep beating the same dead horse, but your argument is ultimately spurious.

Usefulness and importance are subjective and contingent to subjective and contingent beings, not the self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent creator of this universe.

That's an epic non-sequitur. God is, well, god, therefore things don't vary in usefulness or importance to him? What?

They're inseparable pieces of consciousness.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Subjective meaning ≠ objective meaning

Agreed (if by objective you mean intended).

Subjective truth ≠ objective truth

Sure.

Subjective value ≠ objective value

The latter is logically incoherent.

It's just as much for the mother, father and society as a whole as it is for the unborn child.

It seems like an intensely cruel thing to do to the child though. Why would you risk its soul being damned if you can guarantee it salvation? Why would any Christian parent take that risk?

You've already engaged. Your failure to remain engaged is indicative of your failure to adequately explore the available evidence.

You'd be the first to provide any such thing. Prepare your Nobel speech.

If God preexists creation, His value judgment literally exist within a vacuum.

And we were talking about our value determinations, not his.

Yes. Back to the concept of intellectual property.

I feel like this analogy doesn't fully work because a piece of intellectual property is itself incapable of stewarding or owning anything, so if we're trying to find an owner we must necessarily defer elsewhere.

This is an irrelevant analogy, as a mother aborting her child rarely ever does so because she fears for her own life.

That's an irrelevant response because the point was simply to explore all differences between two options before making a decision, I didn't specify what was being decided on. It was a general statement.

And my whole point is that only God can make this determination.

So then why have you spent so much time trying to make this determination in his stead when by your own admission you're incapable of doing so?

Blind faith is objectively less coherent than reasoned faith.

Sematics. This is what happens when you shoehorn the word faith into a debate like this without ever properly defining it.

I'm not arguing for it, I'm wondering what happens if it's true.

Yeah it's fun to think about, but we have no reason to seriously consider it until it presents itself as a viable option.

Aside from harming the prospective mother/father, it harms society. Are you familiar with Margaret Sanger's position on eugenics?

I said in and of itself. By invoking anyone but the deceased, you're no longer discussing death in and of itself.

More circular reasoning.

Yeah, no.

I believe you believe this.

It just doesn't make any sense.

I'm happy ending this exchange here as we both seem to have reached a logical impasse. Neither of us can move forward within the other's paradigm of reality, but feel free to respond and we'll see where it takes us.

I really wish you opened your post with this, 'cause we've definitely just gone a full 360 degrees minus a couple little detours.

Maybe start a separate thread for the god discussion. I think there already is one, but it's probably buried or archived or deleted or something.

 

[omgliekkewl]

...not in any even vague way is god's word data. Even if god exists, at best his word communicates data, but can't be data itself.

Wrong by every definition of data. Makes me wonder how many other words you're misusing.

"the quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer, being stored and transmitted in the form of electrical signals and recorded on magnetic, optical, or mechanical recording media."

"Data (/ˈdeɪtə/day-tə, or /ˈdɑːtə/dah-tə;[1] treated as singular, plural, or as a mass noun) is any sequence of one (1) or more symbols given meaning by specific act(s) of interpretation. Data (or datum – a single unit of data) is not information. Data requires interpretation to become information. To translate data to information, there must be several known factors considered. The factors involved are determined by the creator of the data and the desired information."

"Data as a general concept refers to the fact that some existing information or knowledge is represented or coded in some form suitable for better usage or processing."

"facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning"

"information expressed as numbers for use especially in a computer"

Because people don't exist in complete solitude in this world. Simply being around other people allows one to provide value. When other people are removed from the equation, that potential disappears, which wouldn't happen if value was intrinsic.

You can remove other people, but you can't remove God. Adam was still valuable when he was alone because God created Adam in His own image.

If you want to argue semantics, take this up with Merriam Webster, whose seventh definition of "value" demolishes this strawman you've tediously drawn out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

"something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable"

There you have it. If the concept of intrinsic value is still incoherent, despite being used as one of the definitions of value itself, perhaps you should reconsider the coherence of your own arguments.

"God" is not a metric. What metric does god use?

He uses Himself. In the beginning, God created and saw that it was good. In the same way that He swears by Himself, since there is nothing higher for Him to swear by, He judges according to His perfect standards, establishing the very line that divides good and evil.

What criteria does something need to fulfil before god makes his determination?

It accomplishes what He desires, achieving its objective.

Still not the definition of synonymous.

I copied and pasted that from a dictionary definition of synonymous.

Words are associated with concepts. The value in that is that we all share this world, and so we're all generally familiar with the same set of concepts, for which we've invented words. "Value permits us to translate words" barely even makes sense. Shared experience is what makes translating words possible. If we were to contact a new race, be them a secluded race of humans or an extra-terrestrial race, whose way of life included things we were wholly unfamiliar with, they'd be incapable of communicating those concepts to us until we were introduced to these things themselves.

Shared experiences are only possible because reality is imbued with intrinsic value, whether it's the cosmological constant or the spectrum of color emitted by the glow of your screen.

Unless your attempts at communication are unintelligible. Then they're valueless.

Or they're just not understood by the audience.

Human inventions aren't necessarily subjective. The scientific method, while obviously imperfect, is constructed in such a way so as to attempt to eliminate biases and achieve objectivity - or as close to it as reasonably possible. And before you trot out the "faith" argument again - nobody requires something be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before placing their trust in it, because that's a ridiculous standard to hold to.

The scientific method is limited in its scope of inquiry in that it cannot account for phenomena that are not repeatable or experimentally viable. It can describe the reality we see but cannot account for its origins, nor can it explain that which exists beyond the boundaries of time and space.

The communication of valid ideas is only valuable if we desire information on those ideas. Again, subjective.

This again skews the definition of subjective and objective, giving power to what is subjectively observed and not what is objectively created.

Since you've repeatedly shown a knack for misusing language, I'll quote Webster's definition of objective:

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers"

So, if I speak or write a word, I have done so objectively according to this definition. Why? Because my creative act of uttering/writing the word translates my intangible idea into the fabric of reality, creating an object/phenomenon/condition that exists independent of myself and perceptible by all observers. Perceptible, not intelligible, understandable or meaningful.

This means that every time you quote one of my posts, you're undermining your own tenuous argument.

What's more, your thought experiment comes apart at the seams when "objective" is understood in this context, as the actions of Mr. Nobody are still producing sensible experiences that are perceptible by all observers--himself.

It has no value if it provides no value. If the possibility of not providing value exists, its value isn't intrinsic.

The possibility doesn't exist because there is always at least one observer.

Is it just me or are we going in circles?

Is a downward spiral still considered a circle?

Being impartial or knowledgable isn't necessarily related with how one may make value judgments because one's value judgments aren't necessarily predicated on the inherent nature of the object.

God's are.

Okay so you agree then that god's value is subjective and one is free to not value him. Your gravity analogy doesn't work because not valuing gravity is an equally logically coherent position no matter the consequences associated with it. You're conflating the "value" of gravity with the physical properties of gravity. They're not necessarily related, the latter can exist without the former.

Nature and value are interchangeable when it comes to God's understanding of creation.

This is just one big composition fallacy. Value is not necessarily assigned in this top-down manner.

It is if God is the only observer.

And value still isn't synonymous with valid. A hypothetically valueless person can have valid ideas.

Can dividing by zero ever produce a valid result?

Can multiplying by zero ever produce anything but zero?

How is a person without value different than zero?

They only serve a function in a scenario where such actions are required.

No one forced God to say "Let there be light," nor did anyone force Jesus to command demons to leave their hosts. Their words are volitional and the effect they have on objective reality are proof of their intrinsic value.

A scenario where they are not is conceivable, and so the value of said actions is contingent on happening in such a scenario where they are.

Actually, it isn't. God answers to no one and the value of His word and the affect it has on objective reality is contingent on nothing but His own will.

The ability to cast out demons is only valuable if demons exist. Contingent.

If the ability to cast out demons precedes the existence of the demons themselves, it isn't contingent at all.

The intrinsic value of human life, not to mention god's moral superiority, needs to be demonstrated before any of this follows.

Done and done.

You're equivocating on the word subjective.

From the dictionary definition of subjective:

"existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought"

This doesn't apply to God because the object of thought can't exist without the thinking subject.

"relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself."

This doesn't apply to God because nothing exists that is distinct from God unless God has brought it into existence.

"of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness"

This doesn't apply to God because God is all powerful and His freedom is limited by nothing save Himself.

Any entity's own thoughts are subjective by definition. Its thoughts are the product of its perspective.

Any contingent entity's own thoughts are subjective by definition. Any self-sufficient entity's thoughts are objective by definition.

God's perspective informs his opinions. Having a perfect perspective doesn't change that. And having an objective perspective doesn't mean everything one has a perspective on is itself objective.

This is nonsense.

If God's perspective is perfect (complete) and objective (impartial), as you concede, then everything God has created falls within the scope of this perspective.

Because nothing has been created apart from God, nothing exists apart from his objective perspective.

Think of taste in music as an analogy here. God probably finds the band Anal **** unbearable. Does that make them objectively unbearable? Obviously not. Sometimes "objectivity" simply doesn't apply, no matter the perspective.

God has a penchant for destroying that which He finds unbearable, so I don't think the band you mentioned qualifies. Still, your question is framed within a subjective framework, so it naturally begs a subjective answer. There are plenty of illustrations of the word "unbearable" where its objective application is justified.

For example, if I tie a 45lb plate to a rope and then place the rope directly over a flame, the load will inevitably become unbearable for the rope. Similarly, if God commands a demon to leave its host, the immense power by which the demon is driven out is objectively unbearable, otherwise the demon would simply ignore the command.

You ought to take this up with other Christians. Tell them to stop doing missionary work.

This is like telling a math professor to stop teaching calculus because his students already grasp addition. God's objective isn't mediocrity, it's perfection, which means we must increasingly become more like Him. This is not possible without greater insight into God's character, which is not possible without God's revelation of His character.

This revelation is the Gospel.

So in this sense then, god is rewarding sinners. Why bother proselytizing then if, no matter what awaits one in the afterlife, per the way god doles out judgment, one will be content with the outcome?

I didn't say people in hell would be content, I said they'd be even less content in heaven than the misery of their own design. People in hell will most certainly be weeping and gnashing their teeth, since they will be aware that they are responsible for their fate.

The only reward God offers all sinners (whether they're bound for heaven or hell) is the salvation that comes as a result of His mercy. He offers it freely and impartially, accepting all into His kingdom that accept Him and rejecting all who reject Him. Proselytizing is merely one vehicle God has chosen to make His gift of salvation known.

For only those who call on the name of the Lord are assured salvation. And how can they call on the Lord if they haven't first believed in Him? How can they believe in the Lord unless they've first heard of Him? How can they hear unless someone first speaks to them about Him?

Yes, conflating. One's potential personal investment in a work of art is not necessarily related to the nature of said work.

Are you contending that art exists apart from the personal investment of the artist?

That's an epic non-sequitur. God is, well, god, therefore things don't vary in usefulness or importance to him? What?

Something can only vary in usefulness or importance if it changes over time.

God exists outside of time.

Therefore nothing varies in usefulness or importance to God, as God grasps something's objective utility from start to finish, independent of the passage of time.

What does this have to do with what I said?

You're saying I'm conflating these terms, meaning combining them into one, when in fact I'm pointing out that they're mutually dependent.

Mutual dependence ≠ identical meaning

You're arguing that concepts are somehow more valuable than language and I'm simply pointing out that one cannot exist without the other. Is the concept of the quadratic equation more valuable than the numerical coefficients one needs to plug into it to derive a meaningful answer?

The latter is logically incoherent.

Merriam-Webster begs to differ.

It seems like an intensely cruel thing to do to the child though. Why would you risk its soul being damned if you can guarantee it salvation? Why would any Christian parent take that risk?

As in the case with any investment, the opportunity cost is worth the risk. If God creates a child who not only attains salvation for themselves but shares the Gospel with a thousand other people who believe and are saved as a result, their life is objectively more useful to God on earth than in heaven.

And we were talking about our value determinations, not his.

I've repeatedly stated that our value determinations are worthless, so His is the only one worth considering.

I feel like this analogy doesn't fully work because a piece of intellectual property is itself incapable of stewarding or owning anything, so if we're trying to find an owner we must necessarily defer elsewhere.

Self-driving cars are stewards of human life (and the vehicle itself), yet the software empowering them is the intellectual property of that which created them.

That's an irrelevant response because the point was simply to explore all differences between two options before making a decision, I didn't specify what was being decided on. It was a general statement.

Right, but it's a categorically different circumstance. Discerning the ethical nature of an abortion of necessity (e.g. "someone is going to die no matter what, what is the ethical decision?") has no bearing on discerning the ethical nature of an abortion of convenience (e.g. "the only person at risk of dying is the unborn child, what is the ethical decision?").

So then why have you spent so much time trying to make this determination in his stead when by your own admission you're incapable of doing so?

I'm simply relaying His message, straight from His word. Like you said, human invention is not necessarily subjective and neither is the Gospel.

Sematics. This is what happens when you shoehorn the word faith into a debate like this without ever properly defining it.

No, this is what happens when you refuse to acknowledge accepted definitions of words.

Yeah it's fun to think about, but we have no reason to seriously consider it until it presents itself as a viable option.

If it's logically possible, it's a viable option.

I said in and of itself. By invoking anyone but the deceased, you're no longer discussing death in and of itself.

And by ignoring the ripple effect that death has on other people, you're no longer discussing death in its proper context.

 

[Whia]

Wrong by every definition of data. Makes me wonder how many other words you're misusing.

"the quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer, being stored and transmitted in the form of electrical signals and recorded on magnetic, optical, or mechanical recording media."

"Data (/ˈdeɪtə/day-tə, or /ˈdɑːtə/dah-tə;[1] treated as singular, plural, or as a mass noun) is any sequence of one (1) or more symbols given meaning by specific act(s) of interpretation. Data (or datum – a single unit of data) is not information. Data requires interpretation to become information. To translate data to information, there must be several known factors considered. The factors involved are determined by the creator of the data and the desired information."

"Data as a general concept refers to the fact that some existing information or knowledge is represented or coded in some form suitable for better usage or processing."

"facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning"

"information expressed as numbers for use especially in a computer"

Data is yet another word you're equivocating on. You're actually doing it right here in this quote - you literally gave me multiple definitions of the word. Since when were we talking about the computing definition of data?

You can remove other people, but you can't remove God.

You can in a hypothetical. That's the point of a hypothetical.

If you want to argue semantics, take this up with Merriam Webster, whose seventh definition of "value" demolishes this strawman you've tediously drawn out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

"something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable"

There you have it. If the concept of intrinsic value is still incoherent, despite being used as one of the definitions of value itself, perhaps you should reconsider the coherence of your own arguments.

Yeah this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled argument from authority. I didn't realize Merriam Webster was infallible.

You're also begging the question here by literally defining value as "being intrinsically valuable". The question of how things gain their value isn't included in that definition, so you've made zero progress.

Oh yeah, it also uses the word "intrinsically" to qualify "desirable" which is equally as incoherent.

He uses Himself. In the beginning, God created and saw that it was good. In the same way that He swears by Himself, since there is nothing higher for Him to swear by, He judges according to His perfect standards, establishing the very line that divides good and evil.

By what criteria was it good? Specifically, what qualities did god need to imbue it with before it was finally made good?

It accomplishes what He desires, achieving its objective.

So if god does a thing, that thing is valuable.

How completely meaningless. Now "valuable" is functionally defined as "having been orchestrated by god." Why then would you go to any length to illustrate something's value beyond simply saying "god did it"? Or is value yet another word you've been equivocating on this whole time?

I copied and pasted that from a dictionary definition of synonymous.

"having the same meaning"

Hey look, so did I.

Shared experiences are only possible because reality is imbued with intrinsic value, whether it's the cosmological constant or the spectrum of color emitted by the glow of your screen.

You're conflating "value" (which has since been re-defined) with physical properties. Shared experiences are possible because humans are receptive to sensory inputs which are ostensibly consistent across all people.

Or they're just not understood by the audience.

Yeah that's basically what unintelligible means. If your message is not understood, then the audience can find no value in your message.

This again skews the definition of subjective and objective, giving power to what is subjectively observed and not what is objectively created.

Since you've repeatedly shown a knack for misusing language, I'll quote Webster's definition of objective:

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers"

So, if I speak or write a word, I have done so objectively according to this definition. Why? Because my creative act of uttering/writing the word translates my intangible idea into the fabric of reality, creating an object/phenomenon/condition that exists independent of myself and perceptible by all observers. Perceptible, not intelligible, understandable or meaningful.

This means that every time you quote one of my posts, you're undermining your own tenuous argument.

What's more, your thought experiment comes apart at the seams when "objective" is understood in this context, as the actions of Mr. Nobody are still producing sensible experiences that are perceptible by all observers--himself.

You're conflating the "value" of something with the nature of something. Again.

The possibility doesn't exist because there is always at least one observer.

Begging the question.

Is a downward spiral still considered a circle?

Well it's kinda circular in its movement, so close enough.

God's are.

Yeah because you redefined the term.

It is if God is the only observer.

See above.

Can dividing by zero ever produce a valid result?

Can multiplying by zero ever produce anything but zero?

How is a person without value different than zero?

With value defined as usefulness or importance, Mr. Nobody has zero value, but Mr. Nobody is still capable of discerning that he will die if a giant boulder falls on him. His conclusions about mass, force and the frail nature of his physical body are valid, but he in himself is still of no use or importance to anyone, thereby retaining his valuelessness.

But of course when you re-define value as "a thing that god did" and you reject any hypothetical scenario that excludes god, we're just talking past each other.

No one forced God to say "Let there be light," nor did anyone force Jesus to command demons to leave their hosts. Their words are volitional and the effect they have on objective reality are proof of their intrinsic value.

"...are proof of their intrinsic having-been-orchestrated-by-god-ness" you mean.

The ability to cast out a demon is only valuable if there's a demon in the first place. Otherwise the usefulness of the ability is 0.

Actually, it isn't. God answers to no one and the value of His word and the affect it has on objective reality is contingent on nothing but His own will.

No, it is. The fact that I can conceive it makes it conceivable by definition.

Hy•po•thet•i•cal

If the ability to cast out demons precedes the existence of the demons themselves, it isn't contingent at all.

Not necessarily. My ability to crush ants is not contingent on the existence of ants. If ants didn't exist, I'd still be able to, you know, walk.

Done and done.

Not even close.

From the dictionary definition of subjective:

"existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought"

This doesn't apply to God because the object of thought can't exist without the thinking subject.

Be that as it may, god still has thoughts of it after its creation. You're conflating terms again: the mental willing of something into existence (which is apparently how you're using "thinking" here) and considerations of the thing after the fact.

"relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself."

This doesn't apply to God because nothing exists that is distinct from God unless God has brought it into existence.

Yeah, so, like I just said: once it exists, it's a different ball game.

Any contingent entity's own thoughts are subjective by definition. Any self-sufficient entity's thoughts are objective by definition.

Unless they're thoughts about things to which objectivity doesn't apply.

God has a penchant for destroying that which He finds unbearable, so I don't think the band you mentioned qualifies. Still, your question is framed within a subjective framework, so it naturally begs a subjective answer. There are plenty of illustrations of the word "unbearable" where its objective application is justified.

Semantics. Replace "unbearable" with "unenjoyable". I'm confident you knew exactly what I meant and you're just playing games.

Unless god is really so petty that he'd destroy a band he didn't like.

Are you contending that art exists apart from the personal investment of the artist?

Yes exactly that. I'm contending works of art spring into existence from nowhere. Are you serious?

Therefore nothing varies in usefulness or importance to God, as God grasps something's objective utility from start to finish, independent of the passage of time.

I'll apologize for not clarifying, since it seems like the easier way to get started here.

By "things don't vary in usefulness" I meant multiple things and their respective usefulness, not necessarily the fluctuating usefulness of one thing. My contention still applies.

You're saying I'm conflating these terms, meaning combining them into one, when in fact I'm pointing out that they're mutually dependent.

Mutual dependence ≠ identical meaning

You're arguing that concepts are somehow more valuable than language and I'm simply pointing out that one cannot exist without the other. Is the concept of the quadratic equation more valuable than the numerical coefficients one needs to plug into it to derive a meaningful answer?

Except one precedes the other. If the concept does not exist, communication about it is necessarily impossible. But I'm not convinced this is a substantial part of this discussion, so who cares.

Merriam-Webster begs to differ.

Then enjoy being wrong together.

As in the case with any investment, the opportunity cost is worth the risk. If God creates a child who not only attains salvation for themselves but shares the Gospel with a thousand other people who believe and are saved as a result, their life is objectively more useful to God on earth than in heaven.

Risk assessment is also subjective and dependant on one's perspective. You personally may think the reward outweighs the risk, but there are plenty of other people who think the odds are greatly stacked against them, who think most of the population is doomed and that, by and large, Satan is kinda running **** now.

I've repeatedly stated that our value determinations are worthless, so His is the only one worth considering.

And you're making your own value determination on the value of his determinations. How did you make your determination?

Self-driving cars are stewards of human life (and the vehicle itself), yet the software empowering them is the intellectual property of that which created them.

A machine with no semblance of sentience can't actively steward anything, hence why you had to defer elsewhere. Unless self-driving cars have been taking their engineers to court over the intellectual property rights to themselves. Then I concede my entire argument.

Right, but it's a categorically different circumstance. Discerning the ethical nature of an abortion of necessity (e.g. "someone is going to die no matter what, what is the ethical decision?") has no bearing on discerning the ethical nature of an abortion of convenience (e.g. "the only person at risk of dying is the unborn child, what is the ethical decision?").

And my point is, "they're human, they therefore have a right to life" is fallacious. It's a non-sequitur and begs the question of intrinsic human value, which I reject.

No, this is what happens when you refuse to acknowledge accepted definitions of words.

No, this is what happens when words have multiple definitions and you don't clarify your usage before entering them into play, and moreover only add qualifiers ("blind" and "reasoned") a week into the discussion.

If it's logically possible, it's a viable option.

Being logically possible is the bare minimum criteria something ought to fulfil. When that standard is met, we should probably be more stringent in our considerations. It's logically possible that *I* am a deity who will torture everyone who doesn't like the band Anal ****.

And by ignoring the ripple effect that death has on other people, you're no longer discussing death in its proper context.

Except there are contexts where a person's death has no discernible ripple. Fetuses, for example, can often fit this criteria.

 

[Ningildo]

It seems that omgliekkewl's arguments are all under the assumption that we all accept God is real. Now, the reason I bring this up is because accepting this allows for some really asinine "lack good reasoning for free" shenanigans. Unless I've missed something (I probably have), why is this continued to be debated when the notion we need to accept to do so hasn't been proven to a reasonable degree? And because said notion has yet to be proven, God's supposed views on abortion have no relevance on the discussion topic.

It also seems to me that you two are getting snarkier by the post and are kind of derailing off of the topic at hand, but that's just me. Or being up at 4 am, I don't know.

I'm just curious is all.

 

[Whia]

It seems that relies omgliekkewl arguments are all under the assumption that we all accept God is real. Now, the reason I bring this up is because accepting this allows for some really asinine "lack good reasoning for free" shenanigans. Unless I've missed something (I probably have), why is this continued to be debated when the notion we need to accept to do so hasn't been proven to a reasonable degree? And because said notion has yet to be proven, God's supposed views on abortion have no relevance on the discussion topic.

It also seems to me that you two are getting snarkier by the post and are kind of derailing off of the topic at hand, but that's just me. Or being up at 4 am, I don't know.

I'm just curious is all.

Because, according to him, "the question of 'Is abortion ethical?' is impossible to answer without first answering the question 'Does God exist?'" When in actuality god's existence is irrelevant. It's simply a matter of internal terminological consistency.

If we're defining valuable as useful or important, then value is necessarily subjective as usefulness and importance are contingent on circumstances - even if the circumstances are ever-present, as a differing set of circumstances remains a logical possibility. God's existence can not make something logically incoherent become coherent, in the same way that god can't make a square circle or a married bachelor. I'm repeating myself ad nauseam now. We both kinda are.

If we're defining value differently, however, e.g. something impractical and ultimately tautological like "used by god to achieve a desired outcome" then the conversation can end now.

Maybe we should be defining our terms.



(But yeah, as this is getting away from the topic at hand and into theological territory, I did suggest a separate thread a few posts back.)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I generally avoid theology in discussions like this because,

1) That is a whole different topic altogether and muddles this discussion as a result.
2) I'd rather define why I argue my points on a more neutral level that doesn't bring it up one way or another.

I'd rather discuss the morally grey areas at hand with policy than spin it into a discussion on debating religion again.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Can't you guys summarize your points in a condensed manner, ever? That one guy who writes a novel every single post, yeesh.

 

[Dilan Omer]

People should be responsible with their bodies in society

Abortion should not be a fail safe and allow people to mess around with people and be irresponsible

36 million black babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.

This has caused some of the African Americans to believe that abortions is just another word for black genocide and it fuels whatever soft feelings they had for Black nationalist parties/movements.

You see the dangers of being irresponsible. Dont **** with 100's of people and get 100's of abortions. Be responsible do not have the mentality of "I can abort so I can do whatever I want I am safe"

 

[Ningildo]

Abortion should not be a fail safe and allow people to mess around with people and be irresponsible

People mess around with other people with abortion? How?

Also, if the woman in question was sexually assaulted, should she still keep the fetus?

What if the woman really isn't financially stable enough to support a baby, risking her entire life stability? Not to mention the baby not being cared for properly and be put in a situation where it's life is in danger due, say, lack of nourishment or clean surroundings and it falling ill as a result and possibly dying?

36 million black babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.

Well, can't really put up any counterpoints, because it's just a entryway for your next point.

Based on what or whom's statements are these numbers, though?

This has caused some of the African Americans to believe that abortions is just another word for black genocide and it fuels whatever soft feelings they had for Black nationalist parties/movements.

Then, frankly, they're idiots. For this to be even remotely logical, you'd have to:

1. Prove the above figure is real.
2. Prove that said figure is the overwhelming majority of abortion cases.

And for it to "fuel the feelings for Black nationalist movements", these movements would have to provide evidence that most of these abortions weren't done by African American would-be mothers themselves in order to breed hatred towards...I'm guessing white folks? Sounds about right.

You also have to prove this to be happening with some examples. Saying it "could" be the case isn't gonna make it be taken seriously. Assuming, of course, you can do the aforementioned.

You see the dangers of being irresponsible. Dont **** with 100's of people and get 100's of abortions. Be responsible do not have the mentality of "I can abort so I can do whatever I want I am safe"

You make it sound as if ALL women who contemplate an abortion are wild party animals with an uncontrollable sex drive and a severely lacking sense of responsibility. Some probably are, but sweeping the entirety of a group under one rug because of a minority in said group is a bit questionable.

And what if the woman in question had already setup several preventative measures for pregnancy, but they all, through some miracle, fell through. Is the woman still irresponsible and not allowed to have an abortion?

Finally, the only "danger" you've brought up is that, maybe, you might kill a fetus who's African American and that this fuels motivation for African Americans to join Black nationalist movements. Because clearly this is the only danger and issue of abortions and 100% of all fetuses are African American.

If I sound snarky, then I apologize, but honestly, making baseless claims is pretty unproductive in a discussion and that irks me a little bit.

 

[Dilan Omer]

People mess around with other people with abortion? How?

Also, if the woman in question was sexually assaulted, should she still keep the fetus?

What if the woman really isn't financially stable enough to support a baby, risking her entire life stability? Not to mention the baby not being cared for properly and be put in a situation where it's life is in danger due, say, lack of nourishment or clean surroundings and it falling ill as a result and possibly dying?


Well, can't really put up any counterpoints, because it's just a entryway for your next point.

Based on what or whom's statements are these numbers, though?


Then, frankly, they're idiots. For this to be even remotely logical, you'd have to:

1. Prove the above figure is real.
2. Prove that said figure is the overwhelming majority of abortion cases.

And for it to "fuel the feelings for Black nationalist movements", these movements would have to provide evidence that most of these abortions weren't done by African American would-be mothers themselves in order to breed hatred towards...I'm guessing white folks? Sounds about right.

You also have to prove this to be happening with some examples. Saying it "could" be the case isn't gonna make it be taken seriously. Assuming, of course, you can do the aforementioned.


You make it sound as if ALL women who contemplate an abortion are wild party animals with an uncontrollable sex drive and a severely lacking sense of responsibility. Some probably are, but sweeping the entirety of a group under one rug because of a minority in said group is a bit questionable.

And what if the woman in question had already setup several preventative measures for pregnancy, but they all, through some miracle, fell through. Is the woman still irresponsible and not allowed to have an abortion?

Finally, the only "danger" you've brought up is that, maybe, you might kill a fetus who's African American and that this fuels motivation for African Americans to join Black nationalist movements. Because clearly this is the only danger and issue of abortions and 100% of all fetuses are African American.

If I sound snarky, then I apologize, but honestly, making baseless claims is pretty unproductive in a discussion and that irks me a little bit.

You are snarky

**** is not a controllable situation of responability so why do you assume I believe ***** women shouldnt abort?

The statistics I posted are factual coming from Abortion centers across the US. Its a common fact in the African American community and this happens because a lot of African Americans are pregnant at a young age or do not want the baby.

I do not care about contemplators you missed my point my entire point was to be responsible with your body and that the possibility of an abortion shouldnt allow you to be reckless.

If the preventive measures fail they abort and they review why it failed and adjust

No its not the only danger its an example/

 

[Ningildo]

**** is not a controllable situation of responability so why do you assume I believe ***** women shouldnt abort?

It's less that I thought you believed that and more of a "what is a woman to do in this situation" kind of thing where I ask for clarification on what can and can't be done in situation x, in your opinion, so I know where you stand.

The statistics I posted are factual coming from Abortion centers across the US. Its a common fact in the African American community and this happens because a lot of African Americans are pregnant at a young age or do not want the baby.

From the little searching I've done, the highest number I've found is 17 million. Might I ask again for your sources (websites, research etc.)?

Regardless, this kind of kills your point of abortions fueling motivation to join black nationalist groups/movements, since it's the African American mother's own choice, be it due reasoning or circumstances forcing it. How this is the fault of any other "race" is beyond me, nor is it relevant to the discussion topic at hand.

I do not care about contemplators you missed my point my entire point was to be responsible with your body and that the possibility of an abortion shouldnt allow you to be reckless.

Ok...but the topic is if abortion is ethical, not if one should be allowed to have an abortion depending on how responsible they acted.

No its not the only danger its an example/

It's a situational danger at best (and the supposed result is pretty much voided by your own statement above). If there are more, specifically more general dangers, then do tell.

 

[omgliekkewl]

It seems that omgliekkewl's arguments are all under the assumption that we all accept God is real. Now, the reason I bring this up is because accepting this allows for some really asinine "lack good reasoning for free" shenanigans. Unless I've missed something (I probably have), why is this continued to be debated when the notion we need to accept to do so hasn't been proven to a reasonable degree? And because said notion has yet to be proven, God's supposed views on abortion have no relevance on the discussion topic.

You don't need to accept God's existence, you need to explain how determining objective morality is possible if you reject God's existence.

Without a transcendent Moral Lawgiver, there is no transcendent moral law. Without a transcendent moral law, there is no way to coherently move from descriptive statements of reality (i.e. what is) to prescriptive statements of reality (i.e. what ought to be).

I generally avoid theology in discussions like this because,

1) That is a whole different topic altogether and muddles this discussion as a result.

If there are countless examples of people/societies defining their ethical principles in accordance to God's nature and existence, how is this even remotely true?

Is relying on your own moral reasoning to answer this question any less confusing or irrelevant?

2) I'd rather define why I argue my points on a more neutral level that doesn't bring it up one way or another.

If you want to be neutral, you should allow all possibilities to be on the table and analyze them accordingly, not show favor to "neutral" ideas and subconsciously stack the deck by dismissing ideas you deem polarizing.

Truth is mutually exclusive and polarizing by nature. Trying to maintain "neutrality" by avoiding/ignoring arguments is a fantastic way to prevent oneself from ever finding it.

I'd rather discuss the morally grey areas at hand with policy than spin it into a discussion on debating religion again.

And which rubric will you be using to determine what qualifies as morally black, white and grey?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You don't need to accept God's existence, you need to explain how determining objective morality is possible if you reject God's existence.

Your claim is that abortion is unethical because of a deity. Yes you need to demonstrate this god's existence and his properties if that statement is to remain credible. Making the claim that without god nothing can be unethical is an entirely separate one, one that an individual who doesn't think abortion is unethical has to touch, and it does nothing to show your first claim as valid. You're bucking the burden of proof by changing the subject.

Without a transcendent Moral Lawgiver, there is no transcendent moral law. Without a transcendent moral law, there is no way to coherently move from descriptive statements of reality (i.e. what is) to prescriptive statements of reality (i.e. what ought to be).

Again, you're the one arguing for what ought to be done, the stance that abortion isn't wrong/evil in itself doesn't have such a stake. If the basis of your stance is transcendental moral law, then you'll need to bring forth the evidence, instead of reacting to questions of proof by threatening them with nihilism if they don't take you at your word.

 

[omgliekkewl]

Your claim is that abortion is unethical because of a deity. Yes you need to demonstrate this god's existence and his properties if that statement is to remain credible.

Fair enough, but you need to define what, by your measure, qualifies as sufficient evidence for anything to be said to "exist."

For example, how would you demonstrate the credibility of Socrates' existence?

Making the claim that without god nothing can be unethical is an entirely separate one, one that an individual who doesn't think abortion is unethical has to touch, and it does nothing to show your first claim as valid. You're bucking the burden of proof by changing the subject.

I'm arguing both points simultaneously, independently. I have no problem defending God's existence, but people are whinging at the idea of such a discussion so I'm relinquishing it altogether and forcing the conversation from the opposite end of the spectrum.

If an atheist cannot sufficiently demonstrate that abortion is ethical, they have no ground to stand on when making the moral case for murdering unborn children.

"Well, that's like, my opinion, man" is not sufficient grounds to call something ethical.

Again, you're the one arguing for what ought to be done, the stance that abortion isn't wrong/evil in itself doesn't have such a stake.

False. Those who argue abortion isn't evil are the same people who contend that women ought to have a right to abort their children.

If the basis of your stance is transcendental moral law, then you'll need to bring forth the evidence, instead of reacting to questions of proof by threatening them with nihilism if they don't take you at your word.

The basis of ANY ethical stance is a transcendental moral law. Without it, there is nothing to differentiate your brand of "ethical" from that of a Nazi, jihadist or serial killer, as "wrong" or "evil" are relativistic rhetorical devices that bear no objective meaning.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Ok...but the topic is if abortion is ethical, not if one should be allowed to have an abortion depending on how responsible they acted.

For me like myself, overall I find it to be unethical, but it doesn't change the fact some situations lead to it being more sympathetic and harder to say no to it.

If someone's life is in danger, then yeah an abortion will be needed if the mother will die.

If she was ***** and didn't want the baby for valid reasons, then it's harder to say no to it. She didn't consent at all, which is what makes this one the hardest for me.

If someone is using it as a form of birth control because she has constant unprotected sex, then I have zero sympathy and think she shouldn't be allowed to have one.

 

[Cardboardtubeknight]

Thats something thats way too widescale for something like a forum for a fighting/party game should determine. Not trying to insult you or anything, and sorry if I am.

Also death to all babies.

 

[vertime]

Honestly, what does it matter? So a woman goes and has a baby she doesn't want removed from her womb. What's the difference between a teenager popping a spot?

Further still, what is ethical? Why are we arguing what is ethical or morally right when we as a human race can't even pin down a concept we came up with? I propose a new take on this. Instead of "Is it ethical?" we should be asking "do enough people dislike it enough to get it either banned or put restricted for extreme circumstances where having the baby would hold no positive outcome?". To discuss what is and what is not ethical is a merry-go-round of opinions and personal emotion towards a topic. Nothing ever really gets solved or cemented in it's place and even if it does, people still argue against it, as is human nature. What we don't like shouldn't under any circumstance exist. We're selfish, it's just who we are.

As put so finely by Morty in Rick And Morty:

"Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, we're all going to die.
Come watch TV?"​

Words to live by if you ask me. Really highlights the futility of man's inability to accept that our lives are meaningless in every sense of the word. Though, that doesn't mean that we have to be upset about it. Go watch TV. Relax. Do whatever you want because in the end, it doesn't even matter, you're still gonna end up dead.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Honestly, what does it matter? So a woman goes and has a baby she doesn't want removed from her womb. What's the difference between a teenager popping a spot?

Further still, what is ethical? Why are we arguing what is ethical or morally right when we as a human race can't even pin down a concept we came up with? I propose a new take on this. Instead of "Is it ethical?" we should be asking "do enough people dislike it enough to get it either banned or put restricted for extreme circumstances where having the baby would hold no positive outcome?". To discuss what is and what is not ethical is a merry-go-round of opinions and personal emotion towards a topic. Nothing ever really gets solved or cemented in it's place and even if it does, people still argue against it, as is human nature. What we don't like shouldn't under any circumstance exist. We're selfish, it's just who we are.

As put so finely by Morty in Rick And Morty:

"Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, we're all going to die.
Come watch TV?"​

Words to live by if you ask me. Really highlights the futility of man's inability to accept that our lives are meaningless in every sense of the word. Though, that doesn't mean that we have to be upset about it. Go watch TV. Relax. Do whatever you want because in the end, it doesn't even matter, you're still gonna end up dead.

This assumes people hold to a nihilism mindset as truth.

For people like me who don't, I find live matters and has meaning it itself.

Rick and Morty is a good show and I enjoy it myself. That doesn't mean I need to agree with everything presented.

Bojack Horseman on the other hand for me...

 

[vertime]

This assumes people hold to a nihilism mindset as truth.

I do admit, I am a Nihilist.

For people like me who don't, I find live matters and has meaning it itself.

I've never understood that outlook; what points towards there being meaning? Believe what you want, obviously, I'm not saying "No, you don't agree that makes you stupid."

Rick and Morty is a good show and I enjoy it myself. That doesn't mean I need to agree with everything presented.

I don't agree with everything that is presented, just a great deal of what is presented. Like how Rick, realistically, crumbles under his own intellect and Nihilistic view from time to time before sucking it up and carrying on, like a Nihilist would. Or as a better example: How people who are too optimistic are often let down or shamed, people who are too happy or content are thrust into bad situations and instantly panic instead of Rick's "**** it, I either die or I do this **** and live to die another day" attitude. It's a bloody good show that presents a nihilistic form of thinking well and shows that it doesn't mean we become weaker, but stronger, albeit worse, people.

And we're all in this for ourselves, really.

Bojack Horseman on the other hand for me...

Never seen that I'll be sure to check that out.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I do admit, I am a Nihilist.

I've never understood that outlook; what points towards there being meaning? Believe what you want, obviously, I'm not saying "No, you don't agree that makes you stupid."

I don't agree with everything that is presented, just a great deal of what is presented. Like how Rick, realistically, crumbles under his own intellect and Nihilistic view from time to time before sucking it up and carrying on, like a Nihilist would. Or as a better example: How people who are too optimistic are often let down or shamed, people who are too happy or content are thrust into bad situations and instantly panic instead of Rick's "**** it, I either die or I do this **** and live to die another day" attitude. It's a bloody good show that presents a nihilistic form of thinking well and shows that it doesn't mean we become weaker, but stronger, albeit worse, people.

And we're all in this for ourselves, really.


Never seen that I'll be sure to check that out.

Because we live and want to live, we inherently give meaning to life though that alone. Also that fact what we do in life does have consequences one way or another. It's not meaningless because we inherently give it meaning ourselves.

I'd point to, "The Killing Joke" for Joker's speech and Batman's rebuttal for where my mindset is on this. We are above everything being meaningless and not mattering so we can do whatever we want.

I just don't find the mindset to be healthy personally. We can be stronger people with knowing that it isn't pointless, at least this is my viewpoint.

Btw, Bojack is more about depression, mental disorders and the problems with the culture of Hollywood and celebrities. In general I pretty universally love the show and what it presents with it's ideas. More over the theme of, "what is it to be happy?"

 

[davidvkimball]

Do you believe abortion is ethical?

• What are your opinions on the justification of abortion?
• Do you believe it is should be a legal act if it is requested by a mother?
• Is it morally acceptable/correct?

Discuss below, and support your argument with facts and details.

I'll try and keep this short...

Firstly, I hate the terms "pro life" and "pro choice." Each inherently mischaracterizes the others' argument. It assumes that people that are not "pro life" are OK with murder and people that are not "pro choice" are determined to control other people.

The debate isn't about what's more important: life or choice, rather, it's a debate about when the baby's life begins.

The fact of the matter is, if we can prove life begins after 20 weeks, most people would pro choice but just for the first 19 weeks. On the other hand, if we can prove life begins at conception (when the sperm and the egg touch), most people would probably be pro life since most people do not advocate for murder.

I happen to believe life begins at conception, so I see most uses of abortion as straight-up murder. It's not about "controlling someone else's body" or any of that nonsense, like honestly I don't know a single pro-life proponent where that is their motivation. The motivation is pretty much always there are few reasons to take the life of an innocent, defenseless person.

The only exception is if the baby was putting the mother's life in danger.

Now, when it comes to pregnancies that have occurred as a result of non-consensual intercourse, this gets into dicey territory. But let's assume for a second that abortion is verifiably murder. Although the act of non-consensual intercourse is horrible, and dreadful... and the baby may grow up in a broken or nonexistent home, it still doesn't rationalize a murder. You don't solve a wrong with another wrong.

That's just my take on but I thought I'd share.

Edit: a word was starred out so I had to find a synonym.

 

[SkippyJ]

There have already been too many points made for me to read and respond to in a way that would live up to my standards, but if any of you that feel your capable of following complex logical sequence and holding your own in this topic would like to start from the beginning and debate with me over the morality of abortion I'd be super down!

I'm anti-abortion, and I think I have a pretty unique perspective on the issue that you might find refreshing

 

[Sucumbio]

There have already been too many points made for me to read and respond to in a way that would live up to my standards, but if any of you that feel your capable of following complex logical sequence and holding your own in this topic would like to start from the beginning and debate with me over the morality of abortion I'd be super down!

I'm anti-abortion, and I think I have a pretty unique perspective on the issue that you might find refreshing

By saying you're anti abortion do you mean you are pro life (sanctity of life argument) or are you against doctors performing medical procedures or are you saying women should have to go through with their pregnancy regardless of the situation? I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I just don't find the mindset to be healthy personally. We can be stronger people with knowing that it isn't pointless, at least this is my viewpoint.

I "believe" we can be stronger people when we don't need "meaning", for the word itself is a concept. The story of Socrates and the irony of Plato is, in my opinion, the greatest contribution to "thought" for mankind, which I "believe" warns us to not let ourselves be trapped by the consequences of language. It is our greatest tool for sure, but nothing is without disadvantages.

It is understandable how you can see how it can be unhealthy, but there's nothing inherent in a nihlistic bend in the mind that leads to destruction or languishment. I'd claim that such a tendency is born from the existential desire for "purpose", and what you reference is people who've given up hope but still yearn for it, whatever it is.

Speaking of, you perhaps identify as an existentialist, yes? I've no intent on changing your mind, and regardless, the consequence of nihilism is that debate isn't a process of some higher logic, but instead a battle of words and inclinations. It isn't without point though to engage in thoughtful discussions, because we learn about one another, which in turn helps us and elucidates our own self.

What I'd tell you is, if I'm correct with my presumption as to your philosophy, keep in mind "perpetual despair", the human condition that results from identity being under constant attack from the impermanence of reality. One can turn to an eternal, loving creator as an answer to that, although I believe that is just an extension of the despair--everything in your mind and world will still be within impermanence, even your faith itself. That is why there have been dangerous results from religion, although it isn't inherently harmful, it can be quite powerful of course.

As to the topic, my view on it hasn't evolved. It isn't an issue of personhood or rights, but instead of what should a governmental body be allowed and not allowed to dictate for the sake of the populace--and my answer is that outlawing abortion isn't defensible as it doesn't contribute to prosperity but is rather pure ideology. Of course abortion is ugly, the vast majority of people would echo that sentiment, but it isn't an ugliness that warrants political force. If that causes me to be perceived as apathetic towards the loss of life, then so be it.

The title isn't whether it should be legal or not, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the only way it interests me outside of just engaging in a casual discussion of virtue.