So that's your business if that's what you decide? Convenient. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Where did I say what a woman should or shouldn't do? Please, let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description?
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. A prescriptive statement details how something should be. I've never once written about what should be in this topic. But I was writing about the way it is.
And that's why you can't provide reasoning. Makes sense. (no)
It's in your mind. The first post says that the topic is made to support a reasoned argument on hot-topic. I don't care what position is being defended, I care about having arguments. I don't mind if my argument is false. I don't have support for the pro-life position. I came up with that argument just to warm up the discussion. I've written that repeatedly. But you are blinded by your rage...
A person who repeats left-liberal talking points accuses me of propaganda. That's interesting.
What kind of propanaganda am I exposed to? I'm really curious to hear the answer.
Aleksandr, what you seek is completely legit, it's just that your audience is not in this forum. I'm sure you will find much better people to debate with in some of the human sciences forums. Your "greek philosopher" skills are not understood and are pretty much wasted by trying to get some brain food here.
I understand that, and I'm not even trying to find someone who knows about philosophy and argumentation theory here (edit: i mean not anymore), maybe at least someone who can discuss without emotion, and just try to think about it with a cold head and rationalize their views, whatever they may be.
I'm not going to weigh in too deeply. If I'd spotted the discussion sooner, perhaps I would have weighed in more fully. I think it's an interesting topic and, like most of the subjects you raise, I find the discussion to be enthralling.
I personally hold an ethics-driven pro-life principled stance, pragmatically tempered by pro-choice considerations. That is to say that, in an ideal world, everybody lives happily and nobody dies. But this is far from being an ideal world.
Obviously, the true/false premise is that a embryo/fetus is a human being. There are medical, moral and religious justifications both for and against this premise. If instead you argue for the preservation of sentient (over human) life, this argument must contend strong medical arguments that an infant does not truly achieve sentience for several months after birth. Nobody (as far as I know) makes the argument that infants <3 months old/sentience could be terminated. So it's a complex question. And so it should be.
I find the extremes in the binary arguments to be the most entertaining. I find that the argument that it's simple and/or that there's no room for discussion to be manifestly bigoted (a bigot being one who is intolerant of others' views), but ironically is present in those who *believe* themselves to be the most tolerant. I also find it ironic that the most strongly pro-life also tend to be the most supportive of capital punishment - a logical inconsistency that seems to pass largely unnoticed.
But I also accept that, as humans, we are often less than pure engines of logic. I myself am an active animal rights campaigner, but I do love a decent cheeseburger.
First of all, I appreciate that you decided to try to discuss my argument from a rational standpoint, unlike almost all the other people who were making emotional nonsense. Too bad it took two months and no one but you could do it. But later is better than never and thank you for that.
Not really sure why you choose to argue with my argument then, or do you have better pro-life argument?
My thesis is that human beings begin in the zygote. I make my argument for this in my first post. You don't argue with it. You're making your own.
And you're appealing to the medicine. And why is that important? You say there's a strong argument there. But you don't give it. What am I supposed to argue? Am I supposed to come up with an argument for you? Why is it important to have an abortion before three months?
So what is "sentience"? I might well say that many adults I've met are not sentient. So they're not humans? Or what? We put this forward as a criterion for a human, you understand that these are just names of the species and doctors do not consider embryos over 3 months sentient? The same as several years after birth.
But ok if we take "sentience" as a human criterion, then we can postnally abort all newborn babies, mentally handicapped people, people in comas and maybe even sleeping people?
I would like to know your position, not the position of the medical, especially since the position of the medical profession in abortion centres is primarily concerned with the safety of the woman in labour. And especially as different countries have different abortion times. In most European countries you can have an abortion up to 12 weeks. And in England, where you are a citizen (as I understand it) you can abort up to 24 weeks. Are there already 2 different rules up to 12 weeks and up to 24. Which one is correct and why? And why isn't this arbitrary crap based on nothing to do with the embryo?
Yeah, well, at least I'm arguing that a zygote is a human being. And that you can't kill humans frivolously. Why is it important that no one has told you about this before?
For example, if I support executions by the state in a reasonably civilised society and support the pro-life position on abortion, so what? There's no contradiction there. Execution is not frivolous murder. It is a tool to punish, warn, and reduce crime for a sufficiently severe crime. Whereas abortion is done on a whim. And "we don't want a child yet", or "we're not ready", or whatever its a just frivolous murder of a innocent human.
I gave in the same first post an exception that allows abortion, like when a baby threatens the life of a woman in labour. This is no longer a frivolous murder. And that could be self-defence. People as adults can also kill people in self-defence and be justified.
As I say, I find these discussions interesting. I try to respect and take account of the arguments and viewpoints of others. I've been described as a "merchant of doubt", but I prefer to see myself as a proponent of nuance.
tbh I don't have a strong material argument, nor really any argument aside from a premise of humanitarianism. Owing to my devotion to the deliberative "but then again.." I'm forced to recognise that there is also a humanitarian argument for the last-option, ending of misery.
Perhaps it's worth noting that I'm less interested in an adversarial debate and more interested in constructive discussions. Rather than a win/lose conclusion, I lean more towards common understanding - not necessarily with agreement, but hopefully with increased knowledge of both the subject and others' perspectives. So it might be fair to say that I'm the wrong person to enter the debate in opposition
I could formulate an argument that, if it can't sustain itself, it isn't a human. But that argument is no more compelling, no more rational than your argument. Ultimately, I believe it comes down to a matter of opinion on where in the sand you choose to draw your line. That's determined subjectively, and is impossible to resolve objectively. My presumption is that the aim of a discussion is to find agreement/concession based on objective standards, and I don't think this is possible on this subject.
There are a plethora of different medical considerations. Is the zygote so distinct from any other cell in the human body? Why is any other cell in the human body not regarded individually as human? The zygote begins its existence as part of, and not independent of, the body that surrounds it, just as any other cell in the body. Attaining that independence is the zygote's journey, through growth and development, but it clearly - in medical terms - is not an individual at the moment of its first existence. Some religious groups regard sperm and egg to be sacrosanct (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ), even though the overwhelming majority of them will never combine to become a zygote that proceeds to individualism.
I think you're making my point about the deficiency of sentience, as an alternative criterion, for me!
Just for the record, as a UK citizen I can't have an abortion at any point. Although legally I can be a woman here, this basic human right to choose to give birth to a child or not is denied me on medical grounds
My position is that abortion is a crumple zone, and that it would be better to not crash.
Just to be clear, I'm talking post-birth, <3 month-old infants, not <3 month-old fetus. I'm not sure if you remember the case of "Alfie", a child who suffered brain damage at birth. To all intents and purposes, Alfie appeared as a typical newborn despite suffering GABA-transaminase deficiency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Evans_case. Objectively this was a desperately sad circumstance, but through learning about this case I came to realise that a baby is not sentient even by the time of its birth.
I think that, again, it depends on where in the sand you draw your line. The reason I'm pro-life (to the extent that I am) is the same reason I'm against the death penalty. Certainly the death penalty is not a punishment to someone who is dead, because they're dead, and it's not a warning to others either. Statistically, in the US where capital punishment exists in some states but not others, the death penalty is not evident as a deterrent. Interestingly, however, gun open/concealed carry laws do appear to be.
I agree, but I might even say that "losing" in an argumentative debate can be more valuable than winning, because it means that the loser has encountered stronger arguments and gained new information to adjust his position. And the winner has gained nothing.
So I'm trying to find out your line. So now we're looking at a human criteria for being able to sustain itself? Okay, then we're not talking about three months. it's again some years after birth. So we can postnatally abort babies. But again it looks like an arbitrary criterion to me. What does it mean to be self-sustaining, where are the clear definitions with necessary and sufficient criteria. Why do we need a vague criterion to define a human every time. Where does self-sustaining begin? Obviously, while the baby is being breastfed, he is still not self-sustaining. For many people this continues until they are 18 and beyond if we talking about those who live off their parents? And again there are many others people who can no longer sustain itself. They are mostly in hospitals, very sick people and people who have been badly injured and many old people can't sustain itself. So they're not human beings anymore by this criteria and for that reason, it's okay to kill them. I can't agree with that.
Intelligence, consciousness, individual, feeling pain, self-sustenance. It all looks to me like vague and arbitrary criteria that people look for to kill people. And if we apply these criteria to define a human being, it turns out that many people in society are not human beings.
Besides, if we really think about this question. And what are the real reasons why we find ourselves caring about certain criteria for defining a human. We will find that these criteria are conveniently suited to abortion rather than to a fair definition of a human. If we needed certain criteria for a certain action that some might consider immoral and that’s why we need exactly this criterion isn't that highly subjective or even hypocritical? We are simply redefining concepts for our convenience. We don't talk about it truthfully.
For some reason we need outside agency to define a human. It doesn't matter religion, tradition, culture or politics. Why don't we define ourselves away from all these external agendas that dictate how we think.
While I'm not arguing that abortion is bad if you have a moral position that it's okay to frivolously murder humans. That would just be more consistent and more honest than coming up with the human criteria necessary for abortion.
1. A zygote is a separate organism of the same species. (So what species is this organism?) Unlike other human cells.
2. Zygote diploid cell resulting from fertilization and is a totipotent cell, that is, capable of giving birth to others cells. Unlike other human cells.
3. Only the zygote is formed as a result of the fusion of the mother's ovum and the father's sperm that forms a complete genetic code for the formation of a human being. So a sperm or ovum separately will not be able to form a human being. That's the moment when two objects form one. That's the moment when a human being is created.
If we want a non-vague and non-arbitrary line of the beginning of human, we must take the very beginning - the zygote.
I am not a religious person, I don't care what believers think. I don't have any arguments that refer to religion or god. As I said before neither sperm nor ovum contains a complete set of genes and chromosomes to form a human being. And they individually cannot be a human being.
Sorry I misunderstood you, usually when we are talking about three months we are talking about abortions in the mother's body. So you are literally in favour of postnatal abortions up to three months? Oookay. That's an interesting pro-life stance. But what exactly is pro-life about it?
It's self-evident to me personally that postnatal abortion is murder. Then the question still remains, why three months? Now it looks even more arbitrary. And why did you cite the Alfie case? If it was diagnosed straight away, it could obviously have been resolved sooner than three months. But to me, it's a human being. But it's more debatable whether it's frivolous murder. It still is to me. And you're in favour of taking Alfie off life support?
Well, you don't have a definition. Repeating the same word doesn't give it a definition. Besides, a definition cannot contain the word on which the definition is given. For example - "A mother is a female creature that looks like a mother."
Because it creates a referential loop that leads to more confusion. And the definition should have necessary and sufficient criteria for this notion. The concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions help us to understand and explain different kinds of connections between concepts and how different states of affairs are related to each other.Here is an article on this topic.
First of all... no... that is not how you define a human in this subject.
Second: There is indirect thought between on this topic and thing which defines a human about what makes a choice, as a choice, in our lives.
Tertiary aspect is that while we are set in certain conditions, requirements and definitions, each for individually, that is not however what makes us as a human.
What my point is, is to go further and deeper thought about what and why, certain actions are taken for each part in this discussion.
After all, there is a reason why you even started a forum topic, which contains a subject about abortions. Another reason definitely is to enhance your vision about what and why people have, their thoughts set on this, regardless of any reason.
The issue is not about your answer, as your answer is also correct, but it is not the correct... umm... "calculation statement". I did read whole thing and it contains all required variables to give a certain answer, but that is not proper way to tackle it in brain chemical level.
I don't understand what you mean. I did not define the human in the comment to which you are responding. I deliberately gave the wrong definition of mother to demonstrate how not to do it.
In the first post I write -
Which should make it clear that I am quite satisfied with the generally accepted biological concept of Human (Homo sapiens) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human And that's the definition I use.
Here is quote from the section on Human Life cycle - Most human reproduction takes place by internal fertilization via sexual intercourse, but can also occur through assisted reproductive technology procedures.
But I'm not making an argument from the definition. Because I also realise that Wikipedia articles can also be more or less biased by contemporary political agendas.
I don't see the connection you're talking about.
But I can tell you why I started this thread. There are several reasons.
Firstly, I just like philisophy and ethical issues. And this particular issue is one of the most frequently discussed. But the discussions I've heard tend to lack arguments. I've tried to present them.
Secondly, as I said before about politics, the world swings left and right like a pendulum in the course of history. The extremes of that pendulum are always disastrous. Now is the moment when the pendulum swings to the left again, even if not as much as before, but it is still a fact. And I'm just pointing it out. As a consequence of this swing to the left, new mainstream currents are emerging, such as the increase in abortions and their justification. But I'm in favour of balance. And I don't want people to think in terms of mainstream political agendas. But unfortunately it's probably something of an impossibility.
Third, I just came up with an interesting deductive argument that would be interesting to discuss. But unfortunately I ran into problems here because I didn't realise how few people understand what a deductive argument is and what logic and argumentation theory is in general. And unfortunately many people just use emotions and insults instead. As a separate issue it would be nice if people could understand these things a little better.
But I still don't see how it relates to the topic we're talking about.
I don't get it at all. I must have some problem understanding your comments. What answer? And how it can be correct and not the correct at the same time? And I didn't understand what was written next at all.
I've write several times that I don't understand you on various issues. And I got this strange response.
Sorry, but the way you formulate thoughts for some reason to me brings up associations with AI generated answers And I can't shake that feeling. Just keep it simple, what you're trying to say.
I can accept this, except to note that the winner gains some validation. There is value in the knowledge that you have a winning argument.
So am I. It's a journey, not a destination. My line in the sand is drawn on a beach. Sometimes the tide of new knowledge washes it clean and I have to start over.
I'm not religious either but I am not ignorant of the importance that this subject carries in most religions. Most peoples' views on this subject are baked in beliefs from cultural norms which are evolved, and often ultimately devolved, from religious values. Moral and ethical considerations are not informed by scientific metrics. Science can ultimately tell you what is true or false (quantitative), but it is not the purpose, nor even within the capacity, of science to determine what is right or wrong, acceptable or intolerable (qualitative).
Therefore, since the question is not scientifically derived, neither can be the answer. Abortion is a right/wrong, not a true/false question. Science can inform some aspects, but no more than that.
Obviously I am not.
I'm saying that the point at which "murder" is determined with regard to a "human being" is not universally established, on either the matter of murder or on the matter of a human being, but that the sentience of a zygote/fetus/infant is no better as an alternative either.
Meanwhile, veganism and vegetarianism are often gauged by individuals on the sentience of the prey. I know many vegetarians who will eat fish because they don't regard fish as sentient. I know many hunters who do not perceive deer as sentient. Whether they are or not I don't know, but I believe they are.
Because the question is not what is a human, the question is what is an acceptable period of time to allow an abortion, if we arbitrarily choose the zygote as that determining instant then there is no feasible possibility of a legal abortion and suddenly every miscarriage requires a death certificate and possibly a funeral. This has to be binary all/nothing because the arbitrary determination regarding the existence of an individual human being is made.
If it seems ridiculous to require a death certificate for a miscarriage at any stage in development - even if it appears to be just a monthly cycle - then perhaps this determination isn't the best option.
If you are pro-life, what difference would it have made if the diagnosis had been made at any other time, whether sooner or later? Murder is murder, right? Even frivolous murder.
The case of Alfie was very interesting from a sociological POV, more than from a medical standpoint. Alfie was born in the UK, where the NHS (i.e. the British taxpayer) is responsible for the care and associated costs, not only of Alfie but also with responsibilities towards Alfie's parents - including a duty of care for their mental health and well-being, appropriate grief counselling etc.
There was great outrage in the US, where Americans asserted how cruel the NHS was for making the decision to end life support. In the US, of course, the tens of $thousands in monthly hospital care costs would be born by the Evans family - even the best US health insurance is finite in these circumstances - and I firmly believe Alfie would not have survived as long as he did if he'd been born in the US. Money seems to have an uncanny ability to focus the mind, even on life/death matters. As heartbroken as a parent might be, that life support on/off switch looms large when faced with potential economic ruin, even when it's your very own infant brain-dead child.
[edit] Sorry, I forgot to answer your question: Yes, ultimately I felt that the decision to remove life support was the correct decision. I fully accept the Evans family's desire to keep the lights on but there was absolutely no possibility of Alfie ever being more than brain dead, and there was no way the Evans family could afford the care that would have been required. As hard as it is to let someone go, it's necessary. I've lost both my parents at this point and it's been a very hard journey. It's not fair but it's life, and everybody has to live/suffer through it eventually.
Just in case I will clarify that those of your comments with which I agree, I do not comment, so as not to take extra space and time to write\read mutual consent. And that goes for all of my past comments.
I don't think I completely agree with that. I mean, I agree that abortion is a moral issue. And we are dealing with the ethical side of this issue if we are trying to eliminate contradictions in public morality. But the question that abortion is murder might well be scientifically justified if we had objective science, simply because the zygote's its a organism that has the same species as its parents. (Homo sapiens) But even science today is largely based on political context. And what constitutes murder depends on the interpretation of jurisprudence and legislators. So it's not going to happen anytime soon.
And I don't really want to see any kind of prohibition on this issue. That in itself can cause serious harm if it's done abruptly enough. For example, abortion was forbidden in the Soviet Union, and many women died trying to have abortions on their own. There have been known cases where hangers and other unsanitised tools have been used. In an ideal scenario, the trend for having children should be from the bottom of society. But in modern societies it is rather the opposite. And besides, many people are raising the alarm that the birth index is far from 2 and the population of civilised countries is decreasing. Who would have thought? What's the reason, can anyone figure out?
That is certainly true, I was just trying to get your personal opinion on the matter.
So I seem to be a little confused and I've confused you. English is not my first language and I sometimes have misunderstandings. As I understand that you do not have strong arguments on this issue because you are still searching for your position on this issue. That's quite commendable. Many people either don't think about this topic at all, or just repeat mainstream theses without argumentation simply because they haven't thought about them. Such as the person above you.
I find the normalisation of death ridiculous. A piece of paper compared to that is just a flower. And for every sane woman, a miscarriage is a personal tragedy. Although I guess it's possible to simplify things like that. For example, to create reports in some application that will monitor your health. After all, the miscarriage rate is clearly related to this and can be useful for the doctor to better understand the health of the patient. And now such things are kept secret from everyone, including doctors, which only worsens the situation.
Yeah, murder is bad no matter when it happens. Whether it's in the mother's body in an abortion attempt or after birth. It is pro-choice usually advocated that when the baby came out of the vagina then magical power endows it with the status of a human being. It doesn't even begin to make sense, but they don't care.
I agree with the people who think it's very cruel. The insurance system of these countries is something. But in our country, people are just being charged 30% of their salary. And they think medical care is free in Russia. It's good to be ignorant. Although in our country, many surgeries or dentistry, for example, are not covered by insurance. It's hard to say which system is better. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
By the way, I'm interested to know from what positions you advocate for the lives of people who will be executed by the state. And isn't there a contradiction with the Alfie case. Why are you in favour of life in one case but against it in another? (By the way, I am in favour of executions only in civilised countries where the law is respected, because if executions are introduced in our country nothing good will come out of it.)
My position is that human life has value in itself. If we consider the dichotomy between extrinsic and Intrinsic value, human life is fundamentally Intrinsically valuable. But that doesn't mean that human life has invaluable in itself. It's the individual who determines his or her own value. He can go out and kill a man and be killed in return. Or just commit suicide. In this ways he defines his own value.
In addition, it is possible to formulate a rational argument in favour of the protection of life. It goes something like this -
If I am a human being, it is not advantageous for me to be in a society where it is morally normal to kill people from the point of view of the probability of my survival. The less people are killed, the less likely I am to be killed. Therefore, it makes sense to advocate as much as possible for the protection of human life.
I think you can determine alive or dead scientifically (quantitative). I think murder falls to a societal determination (qualitative) though, and might be determined manslaughter in some circumstances, or righteous self defence in others etc - these having a criminal implication and a crime being statutory - i.e. established in or constrained by law - the circumstances completely separated from yet informed by science, for example via an autopsy.
Yes, the consequences of prohibition have a gruesome history, just as the consequences of unfettered access to abortions. There is no one-size-fits-all.
Your English is phenomenal. Some of the best English I've ever read has been from non-native English speakers on this very forum over the years, and some of the worst here has been from native speakers.
It's been my experience that, whether I hold a strong opinion on a topic or not, someone will always turn up to correct me and prove me wrong eventually, in whole or in part. On quantitative subjects this has the effect of sharpening and expanding my knowledge and understanding, while on qualitative subjects it's added to my knowledge and understanding but also made me more open to differing viewpoints. True vs false is so much easier to refine and simplify than right vs wrong.
This is politics, unfortunately. On the left there is a movement to permit abortion up to the moment of birth. On the right there is devotion to the unborn baby, but as soon as it's born they suddenly don't seem to give a sh*t about it. Pro-death penalty is of the right while anti-death penalty is of the left. They're bimodal, not binary, but political persuasion is a pretty good predictor.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and always have been. Either there is intrinsic value to life, from which a society's statutes of individual liberty are derived, or life is not intrinsically valuable. I feel that the notion of a death penalty undermines the credibility of a society that otherwise claims to care about its members.
On the face of it, this might appear to run contrary to my acceptance of Alfie Evans' fate, but I've reasoned it out internally over time. Alfie was brain-dead.
Today, in probably the vast majority of instances we have the ability to sustain "life" medically when the brain dies. I accept that, when the brain is dead, the person has died. There is no medical or ethical justification for mechanically sustaining an individual's constituent organs after this point, except for the purpose of harvesting them when needed to save the life of another (non-brain-dead) person. The process of grieving is necessary for the well-being of those left behind.
If someone had ever presented me with what I found to be a compelling argument in favour of the death penalty, I'd be open to changing my mind. So far in 50 years nobody has. Yet. Honestly, I don't think it'd be possible to convince me but, as I say, even my strongest views are open to being challenged.
I fully accept in principle the rational artgument in favour of the protection of life. It's logically sound.
This is a feature of an advanced society. The more prosperous it becomes, the less children it has. We have fallen below replacement rates in the UK for decades now. Our population is still increasing, however, but not just because all of our elderly are brain dead and on life support
Well, yes, in fact, it is precisely because murder is defined by society that we have this situation with abortion. But in turn, society is susceptible to policy change through propaganda, both within a single country and across multiple countries through idialogue mainstream change. And now it is practically convenient for a large percentage of society to have abortions, and there is a clear interest for a large group of society to define it. Imagine what would happen in society if homicidal rapist maniacs defined what is murder. And for example, that if the victim was raped during a murder, it's not murder, but an extreme sextual act. It doesn't work that way now because there are very few homicidal maniacs in society. As with anything other than abortion.
Abortion is unique here because it is the only case where most of society considers it normal, simply because a certain group of people are labelled as not human for various reasons. There are a lot of different and sometimes contradictory versions why is that. It reminds me that if something bad happens related to Russia, the Russian propaganda has a huge number of different versions that often contradict themselves. (for example, they say that Priogozhin was shot down by an American or British missile from an fighter jet, then they say that it was a Ukrainian missile launcher, then they say that he drunkenly blew himself up with a grenade in an aeroplane) They do this to confuse people and take their eyes off from the most obvious version.
Even here we can see the inconsistency of this position because no one has consistent and clear answer as to why people are labelled as non-human, and in particular because of this we have different maximum possible time limits for abortion in different countries, but probably not because there are different answers, but because they don't care about the baby and they care more or less about the mother's life. Although, to be fair, we have similar examples in history when a certain group of people were labelled as non-human and could be killed for this reason, but unlike the Jews and other people in the crimes of the Nazis, unborn people have no voice to stand up for themselves. But for some reason it's considered normal.
This is an extremely positive and open to learning stance. It is a shame that not so many people are as open minded as you are. I really enjoy the dialogue with you. Even though some of our positions don't align. We can find a common ground for constructive dialogue.
I'm not sure Alfie's brain was declared brain dead by the doctors. Because in our country, in this case, doctors declare a person dead. Death comes not from cardiac failure or respiratory failure, but from brain death.
I think if you have an axiomatic position that human life is self-valuable and its value cannot change, then your position on death penalty cannot change because against the death penalty is the only relevant position here.
I just don't have that position because I believe that a human determines his own value by certain actions. Otherwise, what do you say to a suicidal person who wants to die for rational reasons. (For example, a lonely, infirm, immobile old man who is in extreme pain all the time.) That he shouldn't kill himself because his life has intrinsic value? You realise it would make no sense to him at that moment. I believe that a person has the right to live as he want (as long as it doesn't disturb other people) and to die as he want (As long as it's dictated by real rationality and not a momentary emotion.) Although, I can make rational arguments against suicide.
I can also ask you how do you feel about death in wars? How do you feel about mobilising people?
Society in general has a morally normal attitude towards deaths in wars if these deaths are for the defence of one's family, one's home, one's town, one's country.
I genuinely appreciate this discourse and I feel I'm getting a lot out of it. I think that on the very few points where we diverge in opinion at all, these points can be understood and appreciated by each of us.
We are living in a time when attempts are being made (too successfully) to normalise post-normalism. The notion of reality itself is being undermined with the ludicrous idea that more than one reality can exist, with each individual experiencing their own unique reality, and in those realities that truth exists on a spectrum or that truth can be what you want it to be.
By this route, truth becomes devalued and unimportant or insignificant, because the objective truth is usurped by the subjective belief-as-truth. Into this world, the insignificant "reality" that "Jeffrey Epstein killed Priogozhin" is born. It's rather Orwellian. If you can self-select your reality, and you can be convinced to embrace authoritarianism, ultimately you will accept a reality of authority's choosing without questioning it. Or if you do question it, with whom can you argue? Since everyone else's reality is their own, there is no mechanism to coalesce and rise up together against an authoritatively asserted "truth". Political narrative becomes "truth", and everything that deviates from it becomes "misinformation".
Or.. I could be wrong
Here in the UK also, death means brain death, as determined by doctors. In Alfie's case, there was little to no brain left to claim to be alive. The nature of the disease which attacked him left his skull progressively filled only with a mixture of water and spinal fluid. The name of the disease itself remained undiagnosed until after his death (and still today as far as I know), which meant that there was no possibility of a cure and no way to prevent or slow its ongoing degenerative effects.
I understand your position, I think, but perhaps need clarity on one thing. If a human is to be judged by its extrinsic value, what extrinsic value has a zygote? Or a fetus? Or even a newborn baby? What have they contributed to the world, that imbues them with a value that they deserve any concern, consideration or protection?
Perhaps predictably, I favour diplomacy over war. Every war starts with a failure in diplomacy and ends with an act of diplomacy. A civilian death is a war crime by default, IMO. I accept war as a reality of the world in which we live, but I don't endorse its commission.
I accept that a paid soldier is gambling with his/her own life, but that it must be their own choice. I believe that individuals have a right to defend (or not) their home and nation, but I don't support conscription. I believe fundamentally in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle":-
As I've seen it said by others:- my right to swing my fist ENDS at the point of someone else's nose.
I completely agree with your analysis of this situation. Indeed, the situation in many countries resembles oceania. Many people in Russia have lived very similar lives to Winston. In many ways, the world of Orwell's dystopia is embodied in Russia, but there are echoes of it in other countries as well.
That's why I have minarchist views. The state tends to expand, increase its powers and keep its power as much as possible. Thus the state always tends to be authoritarian. Good are those models of society that have adopted institutions that oppose state leviathan. Such as the separation of powers. Protection of rights and freedoms. Free carry of weapons. A system of checks and balances. Decentralisation, which implies federalisation and strong municipal power. And all the other things that make government small and weak. But it is important that these institutions are not just on paper, but really work.
I never said a human had extrinsic value. I said that human has fundamental intrinsic value, although he can have extrinsic value, but it is only applicable to other people besides oneself, (because it is unlikely that a person can be extrinsically valuable to himself) and it really depends on the context.
Let me briefly explain the meaning of this extrinsic\intrinsic dichotomy. Every person has things that he or she values extrinsically, such as money. But why do we need money? Because it can be used to buy something (i.e. money is valuable not in itself, but for something else, so money have extrinsic value). For example, you can buy a house. But why do we need a house? And here we can answer for example, to be warm and dry. (i.e. again the house is not valuable in itself so house have extrinsic value) And so on down the chain.
Everyone has a chain of extrinsic values, but the last link of this chain is what is intrinsically valuable. For example, in the case of being warm and dry at home, it is necessary for safety (and safety is already valuable in itself, i.e. intrinsically) People have many different intrinsically valuable concepts, such as happiness, love, honour, etc. and these things are not necessary for anything else, they are important in by themselves. But there is a fundamental intrinsic value that endows all other intrinsic values with the possibility of having value, and that is human life. Because without human life all other intrinsic values would have no meaning. As I said earlier, I believe that a human begins with a zygote, and from that moment a human has fundamental intrinsic value.
I could agree with this if it were not for the fact that it will be more difficult for leaders of societies with similar ideas to survive in the face of conflicts and wars. Or they will have to make strong concessions, which many people may not like and this may cause protests.
Sorry, I misunderstood. That was me misreading, not you miscommunicating, on the subject of the death penalty.
I had imagined some form of social credit score, where a human has intrinsic value but where that intrinsic value can be offset by extrinsic or instrumental actions or behaviours - a murderer being extrinsically detrimental to their society, to the extent that the net worth of the culprit justified them being handed down the death penalty. This is not an argument you've made, or that I would make, but I have seen it be made.
Indeed the idea collapses where political or ideological differences between communities, nations or cultures become insurmountable. War is sometimes inevitable. Nevertheless, whether or not it is easy, I believe the best solution is always a diplomatic one fundamentally because of the intrinsic value of a human life. My starting position is always to value not just a life but also its liberty. A life in servitude or serfdom is not much of a life at all, and is by definition valued least in a society where the notion is allowed to permeate.
It's an interesting example, but if we think about it it's not much different from the state of affairs today. It's just that we don't have literal numbers for social credit, (and that's not true for all countries) But it doesn't make much difference. In today's society it is understood that for some actions you can give up your freedom or even your life in some societies, whether we have social credit or not.
That is why all societies have the institution of prison and many societies have the institution of death penalty. Because freedom and life can have its limitations despite the idialogy. Why? Because both of these concepts have no super value that nothing can override. Society intuitively understands that for some actions it is possible to give up these two values. And this has been the case throughout the history of mankind. Even faithful Christians who advocated for the unconditional value of human life denied it through crusades, inquisitions, preventive wars, and wars of conquest against pagans and other small religions. It's sad but this is the reality of things, mankind has been killing each other and depriving each other of freedom for all of history, and since that is still the case today, I have no reason to believe it will ever change as long as we call each other human beings.
Eventually humanity more or less came to the defence of innocent life, which is good. But in my opinion humanity is still not much different from the version of ourselves where murder was considered the norm. We're still just as hypocritical about human life. Which is what this thread is about.
Totally agree with what you said. An innocent human has an intrinsic value that must be protected. But in my opinion what you are saying is in conflict with the original topic of this thread, because you seem to have started an arguing with my argument but have not presented a strong counter argument, I see that you are still looking for your position. And it is right to consider different arguments to get closer to your true position. But as I see it, your position that life has intrinsic value is much stronger than the question of when it begins. If you are not sure about this question, why not be reassured and take the very beginning? After all, we're talking about the most important value we can have.
I'm not against abortion [depending on circumstances] however,
what I find strange is how some people are prepared to die on the hill that is calling for widescale termination of human organisms. I find this to be against human nature, very nihilistic infact.
The biggest portion of abortions are employed as a contraceptive, not as a result of abuse or medical reasons. The idea that instead of the prevention of human life via traditional contraceptive, the termination of it, is just as acceptable?
This is what I find crazy.
Sometimes killing another human is "acceptable" too under self defence grounds.. etc etc but we shouldn't normalize murder and be "pro-choice" on peoples intent to do so. I have the same opinions on abortion and I don't see many people with the same opinion as myself, only hardline opinions in favour or against abortion.
The idea of "pro-choice" is ludicrous to me, surely, if the common argument is abuse and medical grounds for abortion then should the argument not be coined as, "pro-intervention" ? Pro-choice implies support for abortion for any reason at all.
Likewise, the idea of banning abortion outright is also ludicrous to me, since people will needless die or suffer having to bear the child of a piece of shit because a simple procedure cannot be performed legally.
Totally agree with your comment. I myself am not in favor of banning abortion (although I make pro-life arguments). Because I know of cases in history where such bans have led to women dying from self-induced abortions.
The only thing I didn't understand was this sentence. I'll try to argue with that if I get it right.
It is this "simple procedure" that will mean people will die, this is what you yourself said above.
I mean...last time I checked that it means death. And I completely agree with your statement, but it goes against what you say later.
Modern society has normalized human death, and to keep people sane, it's just been given more pretty words like abortion, termination, decimation...etc. But the essence does not change, no matter what you call it, death is death, murder is murder.
No one has an obligation to carry the "child of a piece of shit" If the child is unwanted (such as in the case of rape), the child may be placed in an orphanage or other special services. It's still better than murder, and besides there's a chance that this child will be adopted by another family.
That's an interesting pro-life stance. But what exactly is pro-life about it?
What answer? And how it can be correct and not the correct at the same time? And I didn't understand what was written next at all.
