The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

Hey, Pete. I can only respond to part of your post for now, since it occurs to me that I need my World History teacher to fill in some specifics for me. Asking a teacher is better than using the internet when it comes to politics.

im more than qualified to teach high school world history, your teachers opinion will be of little value to me, especially if that is your source for promoting communism in the face of its historical disaster. history should be your teacher not somebody telling you that kind of stuff.

victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php

here is what happened.

And since ethics are mostly just preferences…well, you do the math.

other people on the thread can deal with that, im pointing out that emotions dont generally count for much in rational debate.

As you state below, an irrational person is “in prison.”. To you, being a child (since they’re sooo irrational ) is like being a slave, or at least like being a prisoner. Given that, my analogy was spot on.

they are, ive raised a few, in fact your support of communism is proof in point of childrens irrationality.

A person who withholds their

so no ownership of property huh? you really need to check out the history fo communism. it just makes everyone but the politicians poor.

Can we agree, then, that it is sometimes acceptable to control another and negate their free will? If there’s nothing wrong with us doing it (and if we have a moral obligation to do so), why shouldn’t God?

because that just makes us robots, if he wanted robots he could have simply made them instead of us. you want to make slaves out of everyone.

Did the countries you have in mind distribute wealth even somewhat equally, or did they never get to that part? I was always taught that they never fully enacted communism, they simply used “communist” as their “good guy badge,” if you will. It was an attempt to use the label of a good idea to justify a nefarious scheme very unlike what the label implied…kinda like covering manure with flowers.

for the most part they followed party line, steal from those who earned it, give it to people who didnt. the mere mechanics of a command economy limits the effecient distribution of goods, the soviets would have to stand in line for even the barest necessities, in stores with empty shelves. cuba was out of toilet paper just last week.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090807/lf_nm_life/us_cuba_crisis_toiletpaper_1

I’ll look into this. I was taught that communism was great for jump-starting economies, but was usually put to poor use after that.

whoever taught you that should be fired. i mentioned your statement at a book club meeting last night, after the giggles died down, a professor from KU mentioned the only communists he knew were professors and grad students who hadnt been in the real world yet.

“Technically” being the key word here. You get the point. The only major difference seems to be that the warchief provided doles on an individual basis, and that this method of distribution was not involuntary (it was not legally required for resources to be distributed a particular way). Am I right?

nope, it followed the politics, it wasnt equal to each, it was according to political connections, the shaman might recieve more, the warriors a different amount and the

I don’t see how I could possibly be wrong here. It’s common knowledge that when you allow an economy to progress on its own with no limitations or guidance, theQUOTE]

funny then, ever heard of ma bell? the ftc doesnt even let some companies buy eachother, on the mere hint of monopoly. its bad for competition, which is what keeps prices down and innovation up. where do you think all those wonderful medicines, fast computers, big tv’s, the internet, and the vast varieties of food came from? why do you think the chinese communists opened up economic free zones? even the communists recognized the usefulness of capitalism. yes, its does need some regulation to prevent monopolies, but we already do that.

fact is the difference between the haves and the have nots is generally their work ethic. as long as everyone has equal access to education and capital as they do here, by law, there really isnt an excuse for being poor, i started with nothing myself, built a business with my own blood, sweat and tears, i literally had 50 bucks and an old truck when i started, i lost it in 9-11 because all my customers were in aircraft, someday i will do it again. but while i am poor for now, i have the hope that i can make another oppurtunity for my own prosperity and in the process i will hire people again, they will be able to feed their families send their kids to college and start the process again. another generation of untrepeneurs to keep making this country strong. communism doesnt have that hope, unless your a politician, there is no wealth to be had, no oppurtunities to improve your situation

I know you don’t agree with me, but do you think that I really intend to represent mass murderers?

you may not intend to but you are, communism always results in this. just check out the history of it, there is a long way in between what some highschool teacher has been telling you and the practical application. see, some people refuse to be stolen from, what do you do about these? in the end imprisonment and death are the only ways it has ever been handled.

As for rights, well, everyone violates those. It’s impossible not to. Take abortion, for example. The right to one’s own body and the right to life sound great when we speak of them separately, right?

see how relativism results in murder? it makes it ok to take one life to avoid inconvienience in the other. apparently not all systems of ethics are correct. simply having a different system doesnt make it right.

I’m 16, so no, I wasn’t around to watch communism unfold, if it ever truly did.

thats about how old i was when it started the final descent. i can assure you it did, i watched it myself.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure I understand your question. We have brains, and we can think. We have desires, and we act on them. We use our intelligence to set long-term goals and plans. Does that help?

What I’m trying to discover is whether you believe our thoughts, desires and decisions are entirely the result of our background. If not how do we break free from it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hmm, that exposure to Christianity did quite a number on indigenous religions. I still would bet money that if you were born and raised as an aborigine in a rural setting, chances are you would hold to some indigenous religion. Unless that area was *exposed *to Christianity.

given the freedom of choice i doubt it, indigenous religions died in the darwinian struggle of theisms. after all, how many will give their lives for the rain god or a statue? most of those people had freedom to choose, and there are converts all the time even in places it can cost you your life, as Origen said the blood of Christains is seed, we dont spread by the sword as islam, we spread by example, by marytyrdom, that others may see that we truly believe, to the point that we are willing to die, the more the pagans killed us, the more that were converted, until nations, peoples ,continents and empires fell under the yoke of Christ.

 

[hatsoff]

What I’m trying to discover is whether you believe our thoughts, desires and decisions are entirely the result of our background. If not how do we break free from it?

If the physical world is deterministic, then that’s that. We are destined to do what we do, and to think what we think, and no effort on our part will change that.

So, is the world deterministic? I don’t know. I tend to think it probably is, but then again, maybe it isn’t. And if indeed it is not, then I would need to know more before I could say what implications it has for us.

 

[redhen]

given the freedom of choice i doubt it, indigenous religions died in the darwinian struggle of theisms. after all, how many will give their lives for the rain god or a statue?

First, indigenous religions did not die out. They exist in their purest form all over the planet, and they have influenced mainstream religions with their indigenous traditions, i.e. Santeria, Vaudou. Second, your choice of words sounds like you think there is an evolutionary model of development leading towards some preconceived notion of what a religion ought to be. You’re invoking Darwin now?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If the physical world is deterministic, then that’s that. We are destined to do what we do, and to think what we think, and no effort on our part will change that.

So, is the world deterministic? I don’t know. I tend to think it probably is, but then again, maybe it isn’t. And if indeed it is not, then I would need to know more before I could say what implications it has for us.

and the mathematical odds of a random event causing a deterministic universe where we just happen to think we exist, where we just happen to think we have free will, and every time we exercise that will it turns out to happen? the determinism of the universe points to G-d or the trillions of times every day that humans test free will ever day for thousands of years just happen to be an illusion, for no reason other than random chance.

free will is empirical and undeniable, a deterministic universe is empirical and undeniable. that juxtaposition points to the transcendant nature of man, able to overcome that undeniable determinism, yet that transcendant nature is not expressed in our physical nature, ergo it makes sense only in the light of a transcendant existence. funny enough thats what G-d happens to be transcendant existence. a being whose essence is existence.

who da thunk it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

First, indigenous religions did not die out. They exist in their purest form all over the planet, and they have influenced mainstream religions with their indigenous traditions, i.e. Santeria, Vaudou. Second, your choice of words sounds like you think there is an evolutionary model of development leading towards some preconceived notion of what a religion ought to be. You’re invoking Darwin now?

no, they didnt die out., there are still some people who cant separate creation from the creator, a basic ignorance of philosophy, and im not particulary anti natural selection, there are great big holes in the fossil record and abiogenisis, the root of natural selction is another problem, but as a chemical system i can see it, so yes, if i care to invoke darwinian pressures i can. evolution is 13.7 billion years to late to be of great interest to me. though im not entirely sure that there isnt a darwinian view of theism, evolution to the truth so to speak. of course i havent the faintest to back the idea up, its something worth thinking about.

 

[tdgesq]

True. It’s very difficult, for example, to dissuade others from using the phrase “doesn’t he/she know right from wrong?”

Especially when your explanation for what this language means doesn’t make sense in the context of non-assertive statements! It’s a pretty bad combo to argue something that is non-intuitive and lacks explanatory power. By the way, the defense against emotivism I have given is called the Frege-Geach argument in case you are interested in knowing more.

What do you mean by “moral?”

I mean how one should act, how one ought to act in concrete factual situations where there is right choice and a wrong choice. Surely you would agree that under this definition statements do not contain “moral content.” Since you asked me though, what do you mean by moral? Does it have any meaning?

I think (1) can be rephrased as such: “If the world is made worse by killings, then the world would be made worse if my brother killed.”

That’s fine.

Assuming that you agree with this new phrasing, you’ll see that we run into a subjective term even after “should,” “ought,” “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad” have been removed: that term is “worse.”

Well, I suppose that’s one of the issues. I agree that using the word “worse” is just a substitute for “more badly” or the equivalent. You claim that those words are inherently subjective, although their actual definitions do not specify that.

Indeed, this argument is valid, since it has the correct form. However, there’s no way to verify if something is “better” or “worse” than anything else, since the concepts of “best” and “worst” are opinions. The argument, then, cannot be said to be sound. No matter how many iterations of (1) we create, we will always run into subjective terms that attempt to replace “wrong.”

Let’s assume that you are correct. One person might say (1) “A1 is the worst action that can be committed by a human being.” A second person might say (2) “A2 is the worst action that can be committed by a human being.” We could posit millions of additional people who iteratively would claim “A1908” is the worst” and so on and so forth. Who is correct? In other words, which proposition out of all the millions of competing propositions is true? The answer under your scheme: All such propositions are necessarily false because there is no such thing as “worst.” Well, unless we are able to define “worst” and related terms in such a way that they no longer contain any truth value. That is what emotivism attempts to do, but it fails in the context of conditional statements.

I didn’t think emotivism had as much to do with explaining the meanings of ethical statements as it does explaining why the statements are uttered.

No, it is meant to explain the meaning of moral terms, not just the motivation behind speaking the words. For instance, Ayer claims that words like “wrongly” have no meaning except to express the emotional disapproval of the speaker. In your earlier posts, you seemed to be stating the same thing. See here:

Goodness and badness describe our emotional reactions to the perceptions of these objects, and are not qualities of the objects themselves. ] Words such as “should” and “ought” describe nothing in reality.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5618407&postcount=99

You can change your mind if you wish, but that’s what you said.

 

[tdgesq]

What do you mean by “moral law?” Are moral laws anything like mathematical, scientific, or philosophical laws?

Yes, moral laws are like other laws. I already defined “moral” above.

Indeed, but no moral principles have been proven to share the status of laws. Many claim to, but the is-ought gap is an argument that has yet to be breached.

What kind of showing is required? I hadn’t realized that there was a showing that the principle of identity constitutes a law. Not even the laws of logic are self-justifying. Perhaps if you could let me know the required showing it would help.

I mean to say that they don’t exist as objects. Numbers are concepts that represent objects, from what I can tell.

Numbers are certainly concepts. Can you tell me what the number -45 represents in the world of existing objects? As I said before, there is no such thing as a negative number of existing squashes.

Isn’t it obvious? I eat chocolate because it tastes good. I make the statements and attempt to obey them because it feels good.

It isn’t at all obvious that it would make you feel good to tell a roomful of moral realists to believe that moral propositions don’t have any truth value because that’s how you emotionally feel. Then again, some people like red meat and others don’t.

It seems that instructors try to drill it into the heads of children that the human brain is driven toward truth. This is nonsense. The human brain is concerned only with surviving so that it can feel more pleasure. This myth of the “truth-oriented brain” is what makes emotivism so difficult for people to grasp. I’m not criticizing you, I’m just saying that cultural influences don’t tend to make these discussions any easier.

I didn’t think you were criticizing me. If you were then you also criticized yourself because there isn’t any evidence that I have been influenced by our culture anymore than you have. We are both products of our culture. Emotivism isn’t difficult for me to grasp. I just reject it because it doesn’t account for what moral statements mean. It has no explanatory power in the context of conditional propositions. Perhaps moral statements are just meaningless. Maybe that is what you are trying to tell me.

The second that I see a system that defeats the is-ought gap, I’ll be impressed. Until then, good luck with that.

I don’t need luck to point out a widely recognized philosophical error in your ethical system. I’m just saying, maybe it’s worth the time to correct it, even if it’s just another system of non-realism.

Two different worlds, my friend. It’s like me saying that your cookbook doesn’t do a very good job at describing the basics of calculus.

No, it’s the same world. I’m not talking about my view of reality or my worldview. I’m operating under your worldview, and even under your own worldview your explanation of the meaning of moral sentences in conditional statements doesn’t make sense.

Utilitarianism is based on moral realism? I hope that was a typo. If not, I have to say that I’m surprised by this, and I’m a utilitarian! From what I’ve read of Bentham, Mill, and Singer, all have conceded that the greatest happiness principle is derived from emotion (they would rather say “preferences” but it’s the same idea).

I always believed that J.S. Mill was at least nominally a realist, but it’s been a long time since I’ve read his works. Jeremy Bentham may very well not have been. It seems to me that they always placed emphasis on the principle of utilitarianism rather than the nature of the principle. I know Mill referred to moral “laws.” Singer is a different animal.

I know Peter Singer explicitly states in the introduction of Practical Ethics that all ethical systems are subjective, even utilitarianism.

I hadn’t even thought about Singer. I am certain you are right about him being a non-realist even though he subscribes to utilitarianism. He and others like him have no problem giving folks normative standards of conduct to follow. You are at least a little bit more honest in that regard.

I couldn’t take Singer seriously anymore after he released some bio-ethical articles proposing that infanticide was ethically justifiable in many circumstances and that the value of infant life differs from that of adults. It became apparent to me that not only were the underpinnings of his system arbitrary, but even his analysis within his own system. Not because of the conclusions to which he came, but because he simply had no anchor to anything in reality anymore. It just became his personal opinion. I am sorry you have been culturally influenced by him.

 

[tonyrey]

If the physical world is deterministic, then that’s that. We are destined to do what we do, and to think what we think, and no effort on our part will change that.
So, is the world deterministic? I don’t know. I tend to think it probably is, but then again, maybe it isn’t. And if indeed it is not, then I would need to know more before I could say what implications it has for us.

There are three possibilities:

1. If our thoughts and decisions are determined we have no guarantee that our thoughts about evil are meaningful. So the Problem of Evil does not arise.
2. If our thoughts and decisions are undetermined we have no guarantee that our thoughts about evil are meaningful. So the Problem of Evil does not arise.
3. If our thoughts and decisions are determined by us we alone are responsible for them. So the Problem of Moral Evil does not arise.

Would you agree?

 

[hatsoff]

There are three possibilities:

1. If our thoughts and decisions are determined we have no guarantee that our thoughts about evil are meaningful. So the Problem of Evil does not arise.
2. If our thoughts and decisions are undetermined we have no guarantee that our thoughts about evil are meaningful. So the Problem of Evil does not arise.
3. If our thoughts and decisions are determined by us we alone are responsible for them. So the Problem of Moral Evil does not arise.

Would you agree?

No.

One formulation of the problem of evil may be summarized thusly:

1. If an omnibenevolent being which is omniscient and omnipotent created the universe, then there is no suffering in the universe.
2. There is suffering in the universe.
3. Therefore, an omnibenevolent being which is omniscient and omnipotent did not create the universe.

“Evil,” in this context, refers to nothing more than human (and perhaps non-human) suffering. So, it is not going to be influenced by determinism vs. non-determinism.

 

[tonyrey]

One formulation of the problem of evil may be summarized thusly:

1. If an omnibenevolent being which is omniscient and omnipotent created the universe, then there is no suffering in the universe.
2. There is suffering in the universe.
3. Therefore, an omnibenevolent being which is omniscient and omnipotent did not create the universe.

My formulation specifically referred to moral evil. Anyway let’s proceed to your formulation:
Your first proposition implies that suffering is not necessary in a universe which contains **sentient **beings. How would you justify that belief? Do you believe omnipotence entails the ability to create a physical universe which is successful in every respect? If so it is necessary to describe such a universe…

 

[Oreoracle]

im more than qualified to teach high school world history

You realize, of course, that we’re on an internet forum, so I can’t simply take your word for it, right?

they are, ive raised a few, in fact your support of communism is proof in point of childrens irrationality.

You’d think that, if I were merely a child to you, you wouldn’t even bother to speak to me. I mean, you can’t reason with the unreasonable. By what you’ve been saying, you don’t seem to think I’m irrational so much as you think I’m innocent or that I “haven’t been in the real world.” I should point out that it is adults who prevent me from being in the “real world.” It’s not my fault. The sheltering of adolescents is justified on the grounds that we’re irrational. But if I haven’t had the opportunity to deal with real problems, how can one call me irrational with any degree of certainty? You’re merely inducing that I’m like others.

so no ownership of property huh? you really need to check out the history fo communism. it just makes everyone but the politicians poor.

Um, what did that have to do with what you quoted?

And a quick question: why weren’t the politicians poor? Were they not subject to the redistribution of wealth? In a real communist system, no one is exempted from redistribution. Otherwise, social classes inevitably develop. Marx knew this, and given his hatred of social classes, and his efforts to make a system to prevent them from forming, do you really think that he would have approved of exempting the politicians from redistribution? Hardly.

because that just makes us robots, if he wanted robots he could have simply made them instead of us. you want to make slaves out of everyone.

So if God creates beings that are unable to exercise free will, they’re robots, and if we prevent each other from exercising free will, those people are slaves. Perhaps you can point out a significant difference between these robots and slaves? Again, if it is moral for us to enslave uncooperative humans (via imprisonment), why is it bad for God to do the same?

whoever taught you that should be fired. i mentioned your statement at a book club meeting last night, after the giggles died down, a professor from KU mentioned the only communists he knew were professors and grad students who hadnt been in the real world yet.

I’m sorry, but I have to ask something: You say you’re somewhat poor, but you go to book clubs, are qualified to teach high school courses, and give money to charities (or give to the poor)?

Anyway, I might be wrong again, but I’ve remembered an example for my original assertion that communist societies are used to boost economy but then fail due to warfare. Consider the commune that developed during the French Revolution. Before the Revolution, people were dying on the streets as a result of their country’s caste system, which allowed nobility to form monopolies even if their product wasn’t preferred (if I remember right, they were given a legal ability that helped them extinguish the competition). They raised prices until they squeezed all they could from the common folk. During the Revolution, however, the economy became uplifted due to the redistribution of wealth. If memory serves, three attempts to create a stable government, including the commune, failed because of unruly leaders and mass killings of the nobles. These killings were not necessary for the stability of the commune, but instead resulted from the hatred the Jacobins possessed.

funny then, ever heard of ma bell? the ftc doesnt even let some companies buy eachother, on the mere hint of monopoly. its bad for competition, which is what keeps prices down and innovation up.

Yes, but if we enact laws that prevent monopolies from forming, then we can’t be said to have a laissez faire capitalism. (Which is why America isn’t considered laissez faire. We realize that uncontrolled capitalism is destructive and inevitably results in a lack of competition.) Capitalism is all about allowing the private dealings of individuals to determine the direction of the economy. If we make a law prohibiting monopolies, then we are certainly opposing the central idea of capitalism in that we’re not allowing private dealings to be the sole determining factor. In fact, we can be said to limit the professed freedoms of citizens to use money/products as they wish. So, by your own admission, we are actually making people slaves because we’re saying, “No matter how much power you accumulate, you can’t extinguish the competition. We’ll seize your assets if you try.” and, “No matter how much money you want to put into this business, you may not help it become a monopoly. You’ll have to shop somewhere else.”

in the end imprisonment and death are the only ways it has ever been handled.

Or you can banish them. I don’t think killing was ever actually necessary, even if the leaders thought it was.

see how relativism results in murder?

…Dude, I wasn’t even talking about relativism. I’m saying that rights-based systems never reconcile their absolutism with the fact that their rights often contradict each other. When this happens, they dismiss the issue by claiming that one right is more important than another, without realizing that this spits in the face of the supposed absolute nature of rights. One absolute can’t be “more important” than another, any more than gravity could be considered more important than inertia. If they exist as objects, they are equally objective. How would you handle this in your own system?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is straying into discussing political systems. Please take that sort of discussion to the Politics forum. Thank you all.

 

[JOHNONEVI]

The problem of evil does exist. An evil entity does not. In order for the idea of a fully empowered entity such as Lucifer or Satan to be acceptable we would have to beleive that Christ failed in his mission 2000 years ago.That he failed to accomplish what he came here to dne purpose was to cast Satan into Hell.Did He fail?What we are battling is our flesh. Just ask St. Augustine.Maybe evil is a question of semantics. Is it a force outside our control or is it a presence that is active within us? Maybe we are still in the Garden learning to master our freewill. I beleive that evil is the lack of accountability couples with an absence of a moral barometer.I think when we let go of the Devil and learn to be fully accountable for our actions we will overcome evil. When a comminity is threatened by a common enemy they unite and fight as one. Why is it so much harder to unite for the common good? To join together in Love as Jesus taught The Sermon On The Mount? Johnonevii

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You realize, of course, that we’re on an internet forum, so I can’t simply take your word for it, right?

why not? im not asking you to believe me because of that, im pointing out why your teachers opinion wouldnt carry much weight with me. there is a saying, “those who can do, those who cant, teach.”

You’d think that, if I were merely a child to you, you wouldn’t even bother to speak to me. I mean, you can’t reason with the unreasonable. By what you’ve been saying, you don’t seem to think I’m irrational so much as you think I’m innocent or that I “haven’t been in the real world.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The thread is straying into discussing political systems. Please take that sort of discussion to the Politics forum. Thank you all.

okey doke, i posted before i saw this.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes, moral laws are like other laws. I already defined “moral” above.

Okay, so let’s compare moral laws to scientific laws. The law of gravity offers an explanation of observations that allows us to consistently predict the outcome of physical events (which is why it’s a law). What does the law “Humans should not kill other humans” allow us to predict? Perhaps now you can understand my confusion.

What kind of showing is required? I hadn’t realized that there was a showing that the principle of identity constitutes a law. Not even the laws of logic are self-justifying. Perhaps if you could let me know the required showing it would help.

From what I can tell, it would be impossible for any should-statements to describe reality, since “should” has a nebulous meaning when only objects are considered. Can I observe an instance of duty or obligation in the same way that I can observe the addition and subtraction of objects?

Numbers are certainly concepts. Can you tell me what the number -45 represents in the world of existing objects? As I said before, there is no such thing as a negative number of existing squashes.

If “45” represents the addition of 45 objects, then “-45” represents the subtraction of 45 objects.

It isn’t at all obvious that it would make you feel good to tell a roomful of moral realists to believe that moral propositions don’t have any truth value because that’s how you emotionally feel.

I’m not an emotivist because of how I feel, I just don’t see how the word “should” can be meaningfully applied to reality. What does it describe? How can we observe what it describes?

I always believed that J.S. Mill was at least nominally a realist, but it’s been a long time since I’ve read his works.

He seems to spend a good deal of time at the beginning of Utilitarianism to point out that ethical statements can’t be supported by evidence or proven.

You are at least a little bit more honest in that regard.

Thanks. I try.

I couldn’t take Singer seriously anymore after he released some bio-ethical articles proposing that infanticide was ethically justifiable…

That depends on what you mean by “infanticide.” Since a being has no moral significance in utilitarianism if it is not sentient (unless the being is cared for by others), I think that aborting within the first three months or so seems acceptable. I don’t approve of killing infants after they’re born just because the mother doesn’t want them, though. They’re obviously sentient and desire, albeit on a primitive level, not to be killed at that point.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think that aborting within the first three months or so seems acceptable.

when the first woman tells you that you are going to be a father and holds your hand to her belly, i bet that idea evaporates like frost on a sunny morning. this is one of those areas that experience will change your mind about.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That depends on what you mean by “infanticide.” Since a being has no moral significance in utilitarianism if it is not sentient.

I would agree, to a certain extent given Christian ethic, if you mean a being that is non-sentient by “nature”, rather then a being that passes through a productive faze of non sentience.

I think that aborting within the first three months or so seems acceptable.

Well, since “me” now as a “sentient being” was in production within the “first three months”, i cannot help but see this as the mother of all insults to my dignity as human being and a complete disregard for the value of my human life “now”.

Abortion is a selfish act.

The fact of the matter is this. I am the end result of a process that began when my mum became pregnant. If you value my life as a person “now” and you believe i have intrinsic value as a person “now”, then you cannot possibly agree with my abortion; because to abort the process that leads to me, is to abort that which we know or believe to be intrinsically valuable “Now”.

Its simple logic!

I don’t approve of killing infants after they’re born just because the mother doesn’t want them, though. They’re obviously sentient and desire, albeit on a primitive level, not to be killed at that point.

Some would say that a baby hasn’t got a sentient mind when they are first born. If this is true, then a mothers view of the baby being a person by your moral standards is irrational. Thus we should simply disregard the womens feelings and try to convince her that its not a person especially if we can use the baby for experiments that might save somebodies life.