So I doubt that many anti-abortionists are absolutely pro-life.
Most Democrats don’t state this out loud but it is their strategy for reducing the crime rate. What's wrong with that?
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.
I fundamentally disagree.
I'm going to assume that this is sarcastically rhetorical, but in the case that it's not, genocide is wrong.
Would you rather live in "pain and non-liberty" or "liberty and non-pain"? This tells which life is better.
Can you tell me what is your moral standard regarding human lives? Because you seem to reject consequentialism.
I need a more in-depth description of what that would entail
All humans are valuable
Its obvious what pain and liberty are. You are just dodging the question because you cant answer to it.
Would you rather live in "pain and non-liberty" or "liberty and non-pain"? This tells which life is better.
A more simple one: Would you rather have the life you have now or be locked in cage and tortured?
Are all human lives equally valuable? Are all humans equally valuable? These are questions you should answer probably.
There is no such thing as a world without pain or without liberty. It doesn't make sense.
I would rather have the life I have now
Yes. They are
The question asks what would you rather have, not what exists. You can want things that dont currently exist.
So not all lives are equal. If all lives were equal, you would prefer all life situations equally.
Basic math, if all human lives are equal, then two are more valuable than one. Do you agree?
I can't imagine a world with pain without liberty and vice versa. Both are needed
That makes no sense at all. Thats ridiculous.
No that's not how it works. Each person has equal value.
You cant imagine less pain or more pain? Less liberty or more liberty? Most people can imagine those.
Thats what you said. You prefer the life you have now over the one mentioned. Two lives are not equal.
If each person has equal value individually, then mathematically speaking, two persons must have double value of one.
No, that's not what you said. You said NO pain or NO liberty.Not less or more
I don't determine the value of others
Humanity is not a math equation
Most people can imagine life with no liberty,
Basically, you conceded that some lives are more desirable to live than others, thus they have more value.
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.
Its a basic rule of logic. Explain why two human lives are equal to one human life in value.
I am not the ultimate authority that determines value
I never said two are equal to one
Because I have preferences
Who is? I am kinda interested in this ultimate authority which you talk about that determines human value.
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.
Other people have preferences too. They want a better quality life, not mere numbers. Quality life is generally preferable.
But what defines better?
Well, I can say with confidence that human value is objective, and not a subjective value.
My 7 year old cousin died from Leukemia when I was 12. I bet he wished he had been aborted.
What people want. "Better" and "morality" were always defined by people's goals. So just use people's goals instead.
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.
I don't believe morality is a subjectively defined thing. Otherwise, morality would be relative. And that just leads to a bunch of problems.
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.
