The debate "Pro-Life agree or Pro-Choice disagree What are the top reasons for your decision" was started by
May 21, 2020, 3:15 am.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
ShayGP, jrardin12 and 23 visitors agree.
diecinueve and 6 visitors disagree.
Didn't you agree with what I said about suffering being objectively bad and being happy being objectively good? If you don't agree, tell me why.
The only thing I base on is those objective things. My judgments about the potentials vs actual and women rights vs human life are based on the fact that objectively fetuses do not suffer and that objectively something that does not make anyone suffer is not bad, I do not base on anything subjective
Yes I know what you're saying. I'm trying to help you understand that there are other equally valid ways of looking at the world.
Whim I agree that:
Experienced suffering > Potential suffering
Experienced happiness > potential happiness
I also believe, because it's all abstract, It's all subjective, that a claim that potential also has inherent worth is equally valid.
In business a potential it is referred to as an opportunity cost. The loss incurred by not taking an opportunity. The lost happiness is still an important part of the equation, and to ignore it makes me believe you're not honest with yourself.
But you can continue believing whatever you want. All I'm trying to do is let you know that your claims aren't objective, your claims arent absolute. They're based on your judgement calls in potential vs actual, women rights vs human life, and many other subjective dilemmas.
Taking away lifetime of happiness to a fetus is not making he suffer. Remember that when I say suffer I am referring to the fact that something happens that we do not like. The fetus does not care if he is born or not, and when he is already aborted he will not matter the life he could have had, so he never suffers.
The pro lifers also consider the lost lifetime of happiness of the child that is aborted.
That undeniably outweighs the suffering of the parent from having a child they don't want, especially with adoption options.
Also, as I said, I'm not sure what my position is on this is. I'm a pragmatist and I see pro choice as the pragmatic option. If I was with someone who wanted an abortion I doubt I'd force them out of it. I just think we sacrifice the moral high ground for pragmaticism, which I'm ok with, I'm just disappointed with how the left dishonestly flips that to pro lifers being woman haters or whatever because of how they're not pragmatists.
Do you think that the suffering that pro-lives feel because they abort is greater than the suffering people feel for having a child they don't want?
I agree. But your 3 points have missed literally the most important category in modern society: what about when some people suffer but others flourish? In other words... a dilemma.
While suffering is the best metric we have to assess consequences, the problem with it is it's subjective. Evaluating people's triggers and degree of suffering in political issues is a fool's errand. How can you tell if a group is exaggerating to fit their political views? What's worse is, since it's subjective we also lack the authority to delegitimize someone else's claim of suffering. You cannot measure my suffering without trusting my word. This is especially the case for triggers we do not share since subconscious empathy alone is not enough.
Since we are all very different there are many cases where some people will suffer from something but others will not.
The point I am trying to communicate is if something you value is lost, like an unconditional human life for pro-lifers, then unless you are a stoic or something, you will experience suffering. If not, then you didn't value it much after at all.
If you value a human life without attaching any conditions then you don't want the human life to end. If it does and you truly value it you will suffer. You're convenientally ignoring that.
-No one likes something to happen that they don't like.
-Everyone likes something to happen that they like.
These are objectively correct statements. I will call "suffer" the fact that something we do not like happens and I will call "be happy" the fact that something we like happens.
Therefore, suffer is objectively bad and be happy is objectively good.
If these are the only objective causes of morality, then there are three cases in which objective morality can be declared.
1.- Something that makes someone suffer and does not make anyone happy is objectively bad.
2.- Something that makes someone happy and makes no one suffer is objectively good.
3.- Something that does not make anyone suffer or make anyone happy is objectively amoral.
Maybe. But why is suffering your condition for human life to have value? Are you saying it's not how you feel about suffering that makes you put it as the threshold for human value? Because if you have an objective basis for that moral claim I'm all ears.
I don't believe objective morality exists, but I'd be happy if you convinced me it does.
My statement about human value is not based on how I feel, it is based on the suffering caused.
Killing a fetus is not bad not because I think that his life has no value, but because doing it does not make anyone suffer
>> 'The value of human life... comes from the fear we have of dying and the suffering of others if we die '
Yes. That is one way to look at it. That is your way to look at it. But who says that is the right way to look at it?
If I value a human life before that human life can fear death or develop social connections or feel or whatever other thresholds you feel are necessary, then you're statement about it being the point human life is valuable is **objectively** wrong, or at the very least not absolute or universal.
Because if I value that human life before the point you are saying human life is valuable, then I am proof your statement on human value is based entirely on how you feel about it. As is mine. That is all values are.
And that brings me back to what I said: Abortion is a dilemma between family planning and killing human life. It's a very controversial issue with no good answer.
It's based entirely on your values, and your values aren't shared by everyone in our community. Your assertion that abortion is right until certain conditions are met is exactly the same as deciding when human life becomes valuable. While I see the utilitarian merits and social justice in it, it improves economic prosperity for women, it helps families proper long-term, it reduces the population growth rate, I also see the blind acceptance of pro-choice as mass conditioning that human life is only valuable after an arbitrary set of requirements are met. While it's probably not a slippery slope that will lead to anywhere horrific, it's still scary that we're able to justify killing humans at the societal level based on the greater good and a set of subjective values not shared by a clear majority of society.
PS I am still undecided on this issue but I had to make a decision before posting this on the browser
I think something can't be bad if it doesn't hurt anyone. The value of human life does not come from being human, it comes from the fear we have of dying and what people who love us would suffer if we die. A fetus of a few weeks is not afraid to die and there is no one to mourn its death, so killing it is not bad
After a point a fetus can feel. But that's not the point.
The point is killing the fetus is killing a human life. It's not a person yet, but it is a living human entity that is on its way to becoming a person. Interrupting that development isn't good.
Abortion is a dilemma between family planning and killing human life. It's a very controversial issue with no good answer.
Who is hurt by killing the fetus?
The fetus still can't feel, so it can't be hurt
why should it be killed?
again, im not equating it to a born person, but just because it has less value doesnt mean it has no value. as a potential human, it does have substantial value. i would ideally prefer it live.
Why should a week 1 fetus not be aborted?
killing a fetus isnt good tho...
i wouldnt put it on the same level as a born person, but i wouldnt disregard it completely. it also very much depends on the fetus. a week 1 fetus is very different from a week 20 fetus, which is very different from a week 40 fetus.
ideally no fetus should be aborted, but before i can support an abortion ban, we need invest in our orphanage system. it is currently an abusive and underfunded mess. many of the saved abortions will end up in orphanages. our foster system is NOT ready for this influx, its not even ready for the children it currently has. fix the orphan situation, and im all for pro life. but never before that.
killing a fetus is not bad.
Killing people is bad because we are afraid to die, and if killing were allowed we would live in fear of being killed at any moment.
A fetus still can't feel anything, so killing it doesn't hurt him.