Sure, ok. So you think value is acquired where one becomes a human being at conception. Why? I have already stated where human life acquires value in any serious, non-arbitrary manner.
Sorry, I've written that wrongly: No, orphans CAN be valued/ARE valuable because they value themselves. See? Fetuses do not have an interest in being alive thus they do not value themselves thus are not valued. Get it yet? This would be unethical from the position I have described because I value my existence. If I did not, I would simply commit suicide.
No, it is arbritrary because what people value is arbritrary. For example, if a woman thinks about an abortion because she does not "value" the life inside her, but for whatever reason has the child and is glad that she did not go through with the abortion, she now values the child. From this vantage point we can see here that what she values is based purely on emotion and whim and is arbritary.
I have heard reports that when attempting an abortion the "fetus" tries to evade the intruder. Then again, he was not asked so it is hard to say. LOL. Anyway, your entire argument falls apart if you consider those that DO value the unborn and DO value those who try to kill themselves.
And the funny thing is these people have convinced themselves that they don't need God to have morality. Apparently their ethical standards are much lower when God is not in the picture. Someone really has to be deficient in morals to want to kill an unborn baby: But I guess it is much easier to defend abortion when you have convinced yourself that the unborn are not human.
Yes, the act of valuing something is arbitrary, but it is inevitable for any being that seeks to live to value its life and thus place a value on the interest in being alive. As I said, if a being didnt want to live they would simply kill themselves and thus they need not be considered (assuming they are of sound mind). There is nothing arbitrary about the logic of the principle I describe however that arises in recognizing the interests of others. Sure, but what is wrong with that? What is not arbitrary is the process by which the mother, or more relevant to us, the process by which society defines the boundaries of permissible action of the mother in relation to the fetus. Society recognizes that the mother has an interest (however subjective her interest is) whilst the fetus has NO INTEREST AT ALL. Thus only the mother's interest need be considered. Which is perfectly fine because the fetus has no interest at all - so only her interest need be considered, however random or inconsiderate.
You know what's funnier - the fact people who believe in God cant explain why God is right! haha No, you dont need God to be moral or to have good ethics - quite the contrary. Actually its the reverse - God tends to inspire quite immoral action. Why? You keep saying this but you can never explain why. If you have God as well to tell you why, why cant you tell me??? But fetuses are human. Why said they weren't human? As I said in the OP - human life is worthless in and of itself. You have yet to give ANY argument refuting this claim.
That's in the eye of the beholder. To you possibly, but to the rest of society? Not necessarily. Who made you their king? That's a moot point because it's based off of your begging the question fallacy to begin with. No need for that, your argument that worth is dependant on a "desire to exist" is simply "begging the question" - you simply state it as true and go from there- no more valid than Hitler declaring that human life only has worth if it's Aryan. Though I do feel bad for you if you feel that way, it's not a sign of good mental health to have such a misanthropic outlook on life. The idea that "emotion is weakness" is also false as well - the "higher emotions" are part of what puts humans higher on the evolutionary scale than other emotions.
There's nothing to refute, you have to make the case yourself rather than expect others to prove a negative - your only argument is a begging the question fallacy (ex. human life only has worth if it desires to exist or whatever), so the burden's on you to prove why that is. Plus your argument is a double standard - you once complained that mods had changed your thread title and called it "censorship", even though a thread title is just words on a screen and "can't express a desire to exist", so why does it need protection? - so I doubt you believe your agument yourself to begin with.
Do you think human life is special? btw the question is an objective one. If you believe all value of human life is relative to personal opinion, then no one is right or wrong on the abortion debate, in your perspective. What I said was not a commanded opinion, it was a fact, which arises from the logical extension of rational thought - ie an equal consideration of interests. There is no fallacy their at all. If you have an interest, you create a value. If you think logically and with reason, which is the whole point of ethical/moral thought, then you must recognize the like interests of others and give equal consideration. Not at all. If you have no desire to exist, there is no need to recognize your interests - because you have none. It makes no sense to protect the interests of a being who has no interests. There is no fallacy there. Non sequitur right there. Why is it not good mental health?
"Worthless" and "special" are not objective terms, they are emotional. No, it's your own view and nothing else. Which is my whole point, you can't prove that it's "fact", you just state it as so and go from there. Again, just more begging the question. The burden's on you to prove why that is. No it's as valid an argument as yours, at least unless you can actually prove why your argument is true, rather than just state that it's "the only logical conclusion" or whatever - it's no more valid than unilaterally declaring that only white people have human worth. Having a mindset that "human life is worthless" is negative and misanthropic, both of which attitudes have been shown to be conducive to poor mental health.
According to your own argument it is, because liberals/Obamabots do have an "interest in being alive". Now that your contradicting yourself I'm starting to wonder if you're just an act.
Well no. Worthless is object - it means, of no worth. Worth can be objectively defined. It need not be entirely precise for our purposes here. The question is merely, should the life of human beings be defended simply because they are human beings? Not at all. Its an objective reality - not mine. Anyone can reach this obvious conclusion. Let me test that claim. Do you want to live? I assume your answer is yes, else you wouldnt bother typing here. For me the answer is also, yes. So unless we cannot reason, we can say between the two of us there exists two, equal desires to be alive. Now if we both pursue such interests, logically, there is no reason to say we should not ensure we help maintain both of those interests because they are equal. Does that make sense? And then if we go the other way, we can say if you have no interest in being alive there is no need for me to keep you alive. Do you see how that follows? It works the same with pain, although that can be difficult due to the subjective nature of pain, but not impossible. So, if I seek to avoid pain and acquire pleasure and you also have the same tendency it is logical we help each other achieve such ends. Applying this in an example, there might be a building collapse, two guys are injured - one has a broken leg the other has a large cut. Now there are two doses of pain killers. By the utilitarianism I describe you would say the guy with the broken leg should get both because it will relieve him of what is far more pain than the guy with the cut is in possession of. A rights based person would probably give one pain killer to each. Do you see how the conclusions here are based on factual observation, not an invented opinion? See above. Not at all - its just a childish insult. What I have said is in no way unilateral, unless you'd like to point it out. See above for my reasoning. How so? Please provide the evidence to your claim. I have a feeling you cant.
But they do have an interest in being alive. Please dont joke around like a fool if you want a serious discussion.
No it can't, it's entirely subjective to what a person decides has emotional worth. Feel free to prove it then, rather than continue to beg the question. That's irrelevant to your claim that it's a fact that only human life which is "interested in being a live" has worth, unless you can explain why it's a fact then your argument is a moot point, because you fail to prove it. You're also ignoring that a human fetus does show an interest in being alive by retrieving and consuming nutrients sent to it via the mother. http://www.personal-development-coach.net/negative-attitude.html
There have been several people with the same mine set in recent History Stalin, Mao, Polpot and Hitler are a few that come to mind. All life is precious in Gods eyes but that concept is way beyond your understanding. We all have something to offer no matter how small. I feel sorry for people who think this way and the really sad part is that you are not alone.
This does not appear until some years after birth. So what about infanticide? Also, what role if any should the desire of others play? Even if an infant does not have any desire to exist, its death may still harm the close ones profoundly.
it's counter to self preservation and dependent on opinion. if i start shooting people because i think they're worthless, there's nothing to stop them from shooting me because they think i'm worthless.
Unfortunatly for them, they are cursed with an innate sense of right and wrong. So to overcome it, they play mental gymnastics like what is demonstrated in this thread. All people have the Golden Rule planted within their hearts. To overcome it, one must devalue the opposite party. This means slaves are really only glorified beasts of burden, unbelievers are mere infidels, and the unborn are merely a fetus. For you see, you are free to mistreat the opposite party so long as they are no longer your equal. What I find amusing is that God gives man free will and it is only man who seeks to take it away. History is a witness to this.
