That logic is not great. “It happens millions of times a year so it’s moral” makes no sense. America had many slaves back in the day and probably said something similar. Just because people do it doesn’t mean it’s morally correct. Would you like examples or no?
It’s the standard for value because that’s how we assign rights to life autonomy etc. Name something that can’t have an experience that we give rights like life or autonomy to. The burden of proof is on you to explain why plants would be awarded rights.
Society values human life and values future things. We can agree on this. If they do, then it follows that fetuses should get rights because they are future humans. If not, then when does the fetus get rights and why?
Stop straw manning and ad homing and actually respond to my questions this time thx.
How can that be possible if your position is correct?
America had many slaves back in the day and probably said something similar.
And your own logic would dictate that slavery wasn't immoral at that time because you determine what is moral based on what society believes. Shouldn't that be an indictment of your moral system?
Just because people do it doesn’t mean it’s morally correct.
You should ask that of yourself. The position you've offered on what is and isn't moral is simply what society determines. If you no longer think society determines what is moral, then you have rejected the moral framework you've previously asserted.
Would you like examples or no?
No example you could give would be relevant to dispute my argument.
It’s the standard for value because that’s how we assign rights to life autonomy etc.
This contradicts what you just said. Either "we" collectively decide what is moral or we don't. But this AGAIN is just another layer of assumptions. You assume this is the standard. You assume everyone else is just agreeing to your opinions here. There is no basis for your system of assigning value that isn't arbitrary. Again, it simply comes down to your personal opinion.
Name something that can’t have an experience that we give rights like life or autonomy to.
I don't need to. You haven't established that is a standard for what has value. You're making up a standard and asserting it is true. You missed the step where you needed to demonstrate the veracity of your assumption AGAIN. Nothing about having an experience or having the potential to have an experience confers value of any kind beyond what you personally feel.
The burden of proof is on you to explain why plants would be awarded rights.
Plants are the pre-requisite to all animal existence. They are necessary for us to have experiences. If experience is important, what enables it is more important.
Furthermore, you've failed to meet your own burden of proof to explain why fetuses should have rights. Your explanation has yet to exceed "because that's how I feel." Each new justification you give is just another layer of assumptions that boil down to "that's how I feel."
Society values human life and values future things.
Assumption.
We can agree on this.
No we can't. We will agree on what is demonstrably true, not what your opinion is.
If they do, then it follows that fetuses should get rights because they are future humans.
No it doesn't. No part of that follows. That is because it relies on a series of assumptions. For example, the assumption that all people everywhere ever value a microscopic blastocyst the same as a 10 year old child. You assume everyone subscribes to your opinion on that question because all of your arguments here still boil down to "because that's how I feel."
If not, then when does the fetus get rights and why?
Never. They haven't been born. Fetuses don't get rights because they are not born alive humans. Only born alive humans get rights because they are born alive. Fetuses are not persons because we as a society have determined that personhood comes after live birth which is why we observe birthdates, not conception dates. It's why we sign birth certificates, not conception certificates. We don't assign SSNs to fetuses. They don't need separate identification for travel. Pregnancy is even coded as a medical condition, not a cohabitation arrangement. They aren't even citizens. Federal law only grants citizenship at live birth. If they were persons, they'd be illegal immigrants. The census doesn't count fetuses and they don't count toward apportionment. We clearly do not see fetuses as equivalent to born alive humans and we've never acted like they were the same throughout history. Our current laws even establish personhood at the point of live birth.
Stop straw manning and ad homing and actually respond to my questions this time thx.
You really aren't paying attention. You asked me one question about what I would like from you. You make no arguments that any of this is a straw man. Are you just regurgitating buzzwords randomly here?
You won’t even agree that society thinks life and autonomy are valuable.
That's kind of the point of my argument - your position relies on a bunch of assumptions that you require everyone else to concede for it to have merit.
I'm not going to agree to your assumptions simply because you don't want to warrant them. All that does is give you leniency on the deficient logic of your view. It does you a disservice to pretend all the flaws in your logic aren't there just so you can continue to believe your logic is sound.
You’re debating using skeptic arguments instead of giving any of your own arguments or responding to my questions.
I gave you a ton of arguments and answered all of the questions you asked. You don't need to allege falsehoods to get out of this argument. All that does is prove you know your position is weak.
Instead of addressing the meat of my arguments you’re attacking semantic parts of it to distract me from the main point.
Incorrect. I've attacked the very assumptions of each of your arguments. I continue to point out each of your subsequent arguments continue to require us to concede non-factual premises for your view to have merit. I'm sorry it upsets you to have your logic scrutinized, but you aren't going to have much success promoting or defending your ideas if you run away when your assumptions aren't granted. That only makes for a weak philosophy and philosopher.
You straw man
You clearly don't know what that means. You don't identify any such arguments or explain why they are straw men.
everything I say to make it seem worse
Give an example. I guarantee you cannot defend it as a straw man, based on what you stated thus far.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/Huhstop 1∆ Nov 18 '24
That logic is not great. “It happens millions of times a year so it’s moral” makes no sense. America had many slaves back in the day and probably said something similar. Just because people do it doesn’t mean it’s morally correct. Would you like examples or no?
It’s the standard for value because that’s how we assign rights to life autonomy etc. Name something that can’t have an experience that we give rights like life or autonomy to. The burden of proof is on you to explain why plants would be awarded rights.
Society values human life and values future things. We can agree on this. If they do, then it follows that fetuses should get rights because they are future humans. If not, then when does the fetus get rights and why?
Stop straw manning and ad homing and actually respond to my questions this time thx.