Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If it is objective for us, then a greater mind must have created that standard
Size of mind does not make product of the mind objective. Product of the mind is still dependent on mind.
So, if a man came up to you and said, I believe rape is beautiful, then would he be wrong?No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't be right either. It would just be his opinion.And if we applied this idea to law, then you couldn't actually punish him for raping someone, because its technically not wrong.
You can punish people even if their actions arent objectively wrong. They are wrong according to our standard.
I don't believe the down syndrome child has any less right to life than a healthy child does.Nor does the child with cancer.
I would rather produce healthy child than child with down syndrome. I myself would also rather be healthy.
So yes or no?
Pain isnt the only thing which determines value of life. So its neither yes neither no to your question.
You didn't answer my question. Should we be able to legally stab people with CIP?
My argument wasnt that we kill people who dont feel pain, but that reducing pain is usually good.
Where is the line?
The line is defined by my position in this debate. Fetus under 24 weeks can be aborted. Its simple.
Is being happy and a free person an objective value, or only your opinion on what the goal should be?
Its the goal of most people. I said this before, there are no objective values. Value is in mind.
Children are not free, some are not happy, and most aren't productive. Should we kill them?
All children are closer to that goal than 24 weeks fetus, but banning abortion lowers quality of life.
Children should be free as much as possible obviously. They should also be happy. This is all obvious.
What you are suggesting wouldnt produce more quality life, and it would even reduce number of quality lives.
24 weeks is still before birth. It's still a fetus right?
Yes. What is your point here? I dont really feel happy respoonding to pointless questions. Whats your point?
I'm not talking about most abortions; I'm talking about what you are arguing
My position is that abortion before 24th week are okay, and the ones before week 12 are morally better.
The only one who would be forcing it would be the rapist. And rapists should be castrated or killed.
Your action of banning abortion forces victim who would otherwise have abortion, to give birth. This is clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am not trying to say that your moral standard is wrong. Just most people disagree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Many in the medical community believe there’s clear evidence that a fetus – a developing baby in the womb – can’t feel physical pain until after the 24th week"
Most abortions happen almost as soon as unwanted pregnancy is detected, before 24th week, before fetus feels pain.
However, as explained before, your position would force rape victims to give birth, thus further violating their body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
if morality is objective, meaning that some things are ultimately objectively wrong or evil, then there has to be a mind that is above all our minds to determine that.
No, morality is not independent of mind even if some minds are greater than others. Its still mind.
So, you're admitting that objectively, rape could be an ok, or even good thing?
Objectively, no action is good or bad. Its the mind which gives value to actions. Otherwise, no value exists.
Does quality of life determine value?
It plays a part in determining value. People prefer shorter lives in happiness, freedom than longer lives in pain.
But even if you were right, does "feeling pain" determine value?
It adds negative value. Its the anti-goal, something which makes life worse and what people want to remove.
In that case we should just stab people with CIP, right?
Many countries have legal euthanasia for people who suffer great pain. Pain is one of the things that matter.
I'm closer to being sperm than being old
Being old isnt the goal. The goal is happy and free person. Fetus is much closer to sperm than you.
Fetus in first weeks is much closer to sperm than to being born individual. Value closer to sperm.
I don't think that the distance you are from your origins determines your value.
The distance from origin to goal indeed adds value. If goal is free, happy, productive individual - fetus isnt closer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Same. I used to get up to 10 errors in a row, but it seems to be fixed now.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What do you think of whats written there? It seems to me that it does a good job explaining.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I guess you are right in a sense. I am just surprised by things written on official government site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
99% of the population are already treated as cows, sheep and donkeys. And have been since the dawn of time , BK. Have you never read Genesis "there was no one to work the ground".
I guess thats true. Looks like God of the Bible created man to work the ground and not to enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't believe the quality of life determines value, when it comes to human beings. Otherwise, you could justifiably defend genocide. You become Hitler
Unborn people arent equal to born people. Most people are completely okay with aborting fetuses that are defective.
Unborn, by being unborn, never sentient and never feeling pain, are less valuable than born people by comparison.
By development, unborn people are less worthy than born people, many closer to being sperm than being born.
It is your position that suffers from consistency problem, because you must logically deny rape victims of abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Seems weird that so many are “pro-life” without first being pro quality of life
They cant be pro quality of life, since quality of life is pro choice. They defend "quantity>quality".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is that objectively true?
Probably. So far no one has shown me morality which exists independent of mind. God doesnt change that.
So, yes or no?
I believe rape is always wrong. But thats irrelevant, since it doesnt make my opinion objective at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't believe morality is a subjectively defined thing. Otherwise, morality would be relative. And that just leads to a bunch of problems.
It doesnt matter where it leads. It is the truth that morality is always subjective and depends upon an opinion.
Is there any time, any situation that rape is morally justifiable? And not just morally justifiable, but actually morally beautiful? If your answer is no, then you agree with me.
My opinion on rape does not make my opinion objective. Also, many rapists think rape is morally justified.
Created:
I didnt expect this at all. US government's site wrote an entire debate about age of consent being 14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"millions of uninsured people are eligible for free plans. We previously estimated that almost half of uninsured people could get health coverage for free"
Look at government giving free things to poor people. Why does government oppress us like this? Why God?
Trump never got anything for free except all the millions he inherited by being born rich. World is unfair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of those if not all would never had willingly chose to pay for insurance
Thats true. Person who lives on only one dollar per day probably wouldnt spend it on health insurance.
They would spend it on drugs and alcohol. But Obama forced them to get free health insurance. A dictator!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
between 3 to 5 million people who already had insurance lost the doctors they wanted to keep
Being forced to change a doctor is indeed worse than 20 million people not having health insurance at all.
People even elected Obama because he promised them health insurance. Thats how horrible it is. It is horrible.
Curse you, Obama, for fullfiling your promises which you oppressed 20 million people with. 20 million people with!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
getting healthy people to pay for the sick
Yeah, I fully agree. We shouldnt help sick people. They are sick because they are an evolutionary unfit trait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How many of those millions didn't really want it
Yeah, Obama forced people to have health insurance. They didnt want it. Who wants health insurance? No one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Today, 20 million more adults gained access to health coverage. We've driven the uninsured rate below 10 percent"
Someone should have told them that its a false dichotomy. Its a very false and fake dichotomy, a fake health insurance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The idea that our only options are government-managed healthcare or no healthcare at all is a classic false dichotomy
It was indeed false dichotomy for 3 million people who lost healthcare under Trump. Its all false dichotomies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the government could allow consumer demand to guide the market toward healthier food choices
Americans are famous for healthy food choices. Processed meat is more expensive than bananas. Americans love that meat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who needs government-managed healthcare?
It is better to have no healthcare. You getting ill is nature saying that you need to die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is that why the government subsidizes the kinds of food that help make us number one in most unhealthy among all industrialized nations?
Many americans reject health in favor of obesity. Government doesnt force people to eat a lot. Or does it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
who needs personal autonomy in healthcare
Who needs healthcare?
Just rub some dirt in it. You dont need doctors. They profit from you being sick. The dirt doesnt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
My 7 year old cousin died from Leukemia when I was 12. I bet he wished he had been aborted.
Plenty of people suffer in the world. It shouldnt be our goal to produce more people who will suffer.
The goal is to produce more people who are happy and free, people who are glad to be alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well, I can say with confidence that human value is objective, and not a subjective value.
Yet you have shown no way to objectively meassure it. You have no value in number assigned to.
I do entertain the idea of God, but I wouldnt put my eggs in that basket. Not really useful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But what defines better?
What people want. "Better" and "morality" were always defined by people's goals. So just use people's goals instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Because I have preferences
Other people have preferences too. They want a better quality life, not mere numbers. Quality life is generally preferable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am not the ultimate authority that determines value
Who is? I am kinda interested in this ultimate authority which you talk about that determines human value.
I never said two are equal to one
You said that two are not more valuable than one. So I figured you think they are equal.
Now you say two are not equal to one. Two are not more valuable nor equal to one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, that's not what you said. You said NO pain or NO liberty.Not less or more
Most people can imagine life with no liberty, but you cant. I had to change things. Same point.
Basically, you conceded that some lives are more desirable to live than others, thus they have more value.
I don't determine the value of others
You do. You said values of all people's lives are equal. Thus, no preferable individual life can exist.
You prefer to live life as you do than life in cage and torture. You value lives differently.
Thus, you cannot explain why you prefer such life without giving more value to one life over other.
Humanity is not a math equation
Its a basic rule of logic. Explain why two human lives are equal to one human life in value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Montesqieu's (another classical liberal) theory of separation of powers so that government would infight amongst itself and thus prevent democracy from taking hold.
I really do need to read more about that. Democracy is bad, only existing due to no alternative.
There are some alternatives, but very not popular. How to convince majority to give up their own power?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I can't imagine a world with pain without liberty and vice versa. Both are needed
You cant imagine less pain or more pain? Less liberty or more liberty? Most people can imagine those.
That makes no sense at all. Thats ridiculous.
Thats what you said. You prefer the life you have now over the one mentioned. Two lives are not equal.
No that's not how it works. Each person has equal value.
If each person has equal value individually, then mathematically speaking, two persons must have double value of one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The solution has always been the same: individual rights and a voluntaryist society.
Dont get me wrong. I am all for individual rights. The problem is that majority always wants the opposite thing.
All the bans, the taking away of rights were almost always carried by wings of majority, even demanded by majority.
So while I do like individual rights, the ability to sustain them demands support of majority that rejects them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There is no such thing as a world without pain or without liberty. It doesn't make sense.
The question asks what would you rather have, not what exists. You can want things that dont currently exist.
I would rather have the life I have now
So not all lives are equal. If all lives were equal, you would prefer all life situations equally.
Yes. They are
Basic math, if all human lives are equal, then two are more valuable than one. Do you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
government's oppressive thumb
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
have a right to freely access information online
Contrary to popular belief, having an internet isnt a right. You have to pay money to have internet, TV, newspapers...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I need a more in-depth description of what that would entail
Its obvious what pain and liberty are. You are just dodging the question because you cant answer to it.
A more simple one: Would you rather have the life you have now or be locked in cage and tortured?
All humans are valuable
Are all human lives equally valuable? Are all humans equally valuable? These are questions you should answer probably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Can you tell me what is your moral standard regarding human lives? Because you seem to reject consequentialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I fundamentally disagree.
Would you rather live in "pain and non-liberty" or "liberty and non-pain"? This tells which life is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There is a difference between abortion being morally justified and legal abortion. Abortion can be morally wrong, but legal.
This is because abortion being illegal can cause even more harm, even if abortion itself is morally wrong.
There are also different cases where abortion is more or less morally justified, like defects, late term abortions...
Not all lives have equal value. For example, lives closer to workforce have more economical value by comparison.
Lives lived in pain and non-liberty have lower quality value compared to lives lived in liberty and non-pain.
When calculating saving lives, life of a doctor becomes more important than life of criminal, disabled or low ability.
Life of a healthy fetus at 8 months is more valuable than life of defective fetus at 3 months.
So there is plenty to discuss, and obviously, its one topic that includes thousands of other debate topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A convicted fellon, a billionaire, a liar, married a porn star, was US president, tried to overthrow democracy and elections, survived an assassination...
What a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
a few states have more permissive laws that allow third-trimester abortions
Third-trimester abortions are different, are rare, and morally questionable, and often happen because woman was denied abortion before.
Created:
Posted in:
Amber,
I am not interested in random stories. I prefer statistical research that includes all numbers, like this one:
"Today, immigrants are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white, the study finds. And when the analysis is expanded to include Black Americans — whose prison rates are higher than the general population — the likelihood of an immigrant being incarcerated is 60 percent lower than of people born in the United States."
Created:
Trump said in 2016 that he will pay off the debt. I guess big lies work best on people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Abortion deprives a 21st century American of 70, 80 years of life in 21st century America
So does not reproducing, so people who dont reproduce do same thing. So refusing to reproduce is wrong?
Also, many lives in USA are not good, and aborted children are those who would have worse lives.
Created:
Those questions are literally retarded. Migrants reduce crime rates, since migrants commit less crime rate than local population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Banning abortion reduces death rates of unborn people more than education alone.
Not by much, but lowers quality of life of born people. Born people are more important than unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
No need to legalize abortion when education will just reduce crime anyway
Abortion and education reduce death rates of born people more than education alone. Abortion increases liberty and education.
There are plenty of benefits for born people from abortion being legal, thus banning abortion harms born people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
it might be reasonable for people to also want to reduce abortion
Abortion rates have reduced greatly over time after abortion was legalized, thanks to education. Isnt that good enough?
Created: