Abortion

Author: Benjamin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 133
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    This is a private forum - in order to make the discussion clean, structured and concise. Feel free to read through.



    If you want to post on this forum then ask me for permission to join. Elsewise your post will be reported as distracting.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @fauxlaw @Theweakeredge @whiteflame
    You are granted free permission to participate - I feel like you are all serious and interested in debating fair and square.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    The other forum became messy, unstructured and it got out of hand.


    This will be different. I want us to have a clean discussion. 


    Rules:
    1. We use short and precise posts
    2. We try to follow a linear pattern where we build slowly up
    3. We do not rush a lot of question instead we take each question slowly until we can kind of agree.

    Are you in for it?
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    First point.


    I make a claim: "Adults have moral value - killing adults is morally wrong, regardless of which adult that is"

    Everyone might have different reasons for believing so, but we should all do.



    Any objections?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    I don't accept the claim, provide demonstration.

    At least not without more justification.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Thanks for the question.

    I will provide justification.

    Point 1 - Killing adults is immoral

    This claim is founded upon ethics. Different ethical systems generally fall into two main categories:
    1. Religion. For example, Christianity, which inspired human rights in the first place. [1]
    2. Philosophy. For example Kant, Utilitarianism and many others. Among them you also have one [2] or my "basic" version [3]
    Details

    [1]: 
    "all men are created equal - and are bestowed by their creator certain unalienable rights" This was written in a country where everyone was at least culturally Christian.

    [2]:
    P1: Humans value their own well-being
    P2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirs
    Con: Therefore you ought to value well-being

    [3]:
    P1: Adults might want to kill each other
    P2: Adults does not want to be killed
    C: Adults writes a contract, where adults are prohibited from killing each other

    Extend the line of though until we have a functional ethic's system. Which one does not matter since all must forbid the killing of adults.


    Conclusion:

    Point 1 has been justified beyond a reasonable doubt. 

    Any other objection?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    I don't believe in god and you have yet to justify ones existence
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    I claimed people believe point 1 because of religion. The point does not require Gods existence, just the belief in it.
    Regardless, reason 2 should be enough to prove the claim anyways. I conclude that since reason 2 was not challenged that point 1 has been affirmed.
    Any other objections?
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    I will give time for everyone to comment on point 1 before we proceed. In that way, we can keep the argument structured and avoid repetition based on disagreement later.


    For clarity regarding the terms:

    Ethics: Principles of deciding what is right or wrong,

    Moral law: The rules we construct using ethics, such as "do not kill"

    Value: moral worth. If something has value, it is to be considered entitled to moral treatment - for example, adults are entitled to not be killed, they have moral value.


  • whiteflame
    whiteflame avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 1,303
    3
    4
    10
    whiteflame avatar
    whiteflame
    Not really interested in discussing the philosophy of applying moral value to human beings, so I won't object.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge @whiteflame
    I assume point 1 has been accepted. We will assume it to be true until objected against in the future.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    Point 2

    Question:
    Do all humans have the same value, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or any other such trait?

    My claim:
    Yes, all humans are entitled to the same rights. Morality is to be applied equally to everyone.

    Justification:
    1. The official human rights:

    "Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination." https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/


    2. A logical deduction:

    P1: Today, I am entitled to human rights
    P2: No difference exists between me today and me yesterday
    C: I were entitled to human rights also yesterday

    Extend line of though - and we ultimately conclude that my life is equally valuable throughout my entire life as a human

    Since all adults have the same value as me, we can conclude that all humans - regardless of age - must necessarily have the same value


    Conclusion:
    All humans have the same value, regardless of age.

    Elsewise, different adults would have different value, destroying the purpose of rights in the first place.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    Interpretation:
    In other words, we can say that "if x is a human, x is entitled to human rights"       (at least those that it needs to prosper)


    We started without any moral axioms, but now, using the fact we agreed on, I have constructed one:

    "All humans must be treated like they are inherently valuable"

    Later, we will discuss implications and WHO are humans.



    Any objections or new input?


  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    humans, scientifically speaking, and humans with moral value are two different things. The latter only has moral value because of subjective axioms built into objective arguments, furthered into pragmatic ethics. Without this no human has value. Fetuses lack this trait and therefore are not worth the same, morally, as people with it.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Let's first get the definition cleared out: Human = member of the species homos sapiens [3]

    We are not talking about fetuses at this point - we are talking about humans in general. We are trying to take a step back and look at all humans - and look at how we value them. The debate will become complicated later on for sure. But right now, the question is simple:   how valuable is each human?




    There are only two alternatives:
    • All humans have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
    • All humans have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]

    I claimed that a five-year-old is just as valuable as a seven-year-old. Yes, they are different, but they have the same value because both are humans.

    You claim different humans have a different value. I would like you to elaborate on why you think so. Also, tell me which category you would put your position into.



    [1]: since "are you a human" is a yes or no question
    [2]: since "describe yourself" is not a yes or no question
    [3]: we can debate the criteria for being a member later on
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Benjamin
    Neither of those views are true, you have established a false dichotomy

    The third view is that there is a single characteristic which establishes this: personhood. Seeing as you never addressed my responses to your "criticisms" I consider this unchallenged. Fetuses simply do not have personhood, therefore they have no moral value, it is that simple.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Theweakeredge
    I never addressed your response because it was not clear what you meant. I will critique it when you explain it to me.

    You call my dichotomy false. But it's not, it's basic logic. Either human have equal value or they don't:

    1. All humans have an equal value
    2. All humans have different values
    I ask you a simple question: are all humans equally valuable, or do different humans have different value? 
    Again, do not use fetuses as an example, we are just trying to agree on an ethical model. What is needed for an object to have moral value. I say it needs to be human.


    The third view is that there is a single characteristic which establishes this: personhood
    All people have different degrees of personhood. In other words, all people have different values - the second category.

    Are you proposing a relativistic view of moral value? You know that "personhood" is relative and also based on opinion rather than empirical facts.



  • gugigor
    gugigor avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    1
    7
    gugigor avatar
    gugigor
    --> @Benjamin
    I disagree on point one. Say that a man is going to murder billions of people by setting off a nuke. It would be justified to kill him while he is in the process of pressing the countdown of nuclear button from 10 to 1 and killing him is the only way to prevent the nuke. If all men had equal value, then two men still have more value than one, thus allowing killing of people if they would harm others.

    Similarly, self defense makes it so that they would not harm even more people, so therefore killing others is just in some situations.
  • gugigor
    gugigor avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    1
    7
    gugigor avatar
    gugigor
    --> @Benjamin
    in addition, even if we accept the fetus has the same level of coherent thinking of human, we still have no obligation to protect it. There is the famous violinist analogy where the doctors force you to do a nine month blood transfusion with an unconscious violinist. We are allowed to plug off the life support because we did not consent to this accident and we did not consent to the nine month transfusion. We have no right to force others to protect ourselves. In fact, even if one man could stop a gunner from shooting us, they may justify their inaction using fear and hesitance, thus allowing ourselves to be killed indirectly. 
  • gugigor
    gugigor avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    1
    7
    gugigor avatar
    gugigor
    --> @Benjamin
    however, however, you are on the right track. Mister Chris and Wagyu working together would likely come up with an interesting combination of arguments, combining the uncertainty of self defense along with the future value argument. Even though humans have only the future value, it is undeniable that some amount of people get pregnant through the act of sex. Even if we ignore coercion, we are definitively at least killing some actual children who would become people. Many experts and philosophers agree that most people would rather be born in a horrible condition, rather than never be born at all (though there are curious and excellent counter arguments to such). Combined with the lack of proportionality of self defense (as Mr. Chris grants exception for mother's life in danger), this works in tandem to prove that we are denying the millions of actual children who could've been born, the opportunity to choose for themselves, or even be adopted by other families, so that their lives may be improved. That's why abortion is so tricky to argue.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @gugigor
    I haven't seen one of Wagyu's argument which was coherent.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,880
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @gugigor
    At least not in regards to abortion.
  • gugigor
    gugigor avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 44
    0
    1
    7
    gugigor avatar
    gugigor
    --> @Theweakeredge
    it's not 100% sound, not even when combined with Mr. Chris's self defense analysis, however, it has some interesting considerations, namely that even euthanizing a man in a coma who has only 20% chance of waking up, is immoral. Even if the man was in a coma for his entire life, this alone cannot justify killing him. The woman's liberty is an important role in Abortion and why I consider pro side greatly winning if argued well. 
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @gugigor
    You did not really disagree with point one. You just said that more humans have more value combined - which is an obvious conclusion from point one.

    Point 1 - Killing adults is immoral  (unless specific circumstances make the alternatives impossible)


  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 463
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @gugigor
    There is a difference between refusing to save a life and intentionally kill another human being. 

    humans have only the future value
    I agree. Killing an unconscious adult is definitely immoral because he will lose future "well-being". But that statement is also a natural conclusion of point 2.