, is a reason not to do something as simple as, "it's frowned upon"?

, that is morally wrong. Somebody's value shouldn't be based on their disability status either way.

, the point of the post was to inspire discussion, and to that effect, it accomplished its purpose. I stated my reason for believing something, and invited civil discourse.

, I don't find what one should do is synonymous with what one is morally required to do, and in that vein, the question isnt, "why should somebody do something they should do?". The question is, "why should somebody go out of their way to do something morally right, even at an adverse affect to their well being?"

, good point

, I agree.

, just because something "seems" wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. There is a difference between the two, that being that the adult person has had the opportunity to live a life and the fetus has been barred from living outside the womb. With this reasoning, I would say it is more immoral to kill the baby inside the womb than killing an adult who has lived for 18 years. This is for the same reason that it would be less immoral to kill a person in a nursing home at the end of their life than it would be to kill an infant.

, because we can't prove that they exist as anything other than concepts.

, this reasoning is the same, as I said before, as eugenics for disabled people. Would you likewise bar disabled people from procreating?

, the point is that your analogy is inaccurate. Like I said, it would be similar if in both cases the car crashed. If you shoot the driver, chances are the car still crashes, killing the passenger. Your point, if I am correct, is that since the person can't survive on their own they aren't a person. But every time you have another driver, their life is in your hands. You are dependent on them to drive well. In my opinion, this is a bad question because in both cases two lives are lost. You are single handedly stopping a person from living a full life when you are pregnant and kill yourself. Just because you can't kill a person to save another person doesn't mean that the person who isn't saved isn't a person.

, I just said that in both cases the fetus would die. This doesn't have the same implications. This would be similar to the car case if the person died anyway from the car crash. Is the person's personhood now under question? No. Your reliance on somebody else isn't tied to your personhood. Just because you rely on another person to not crash doesn't mean you don't have value as a person.

, no, because in both cases, the "passenger" or the fetus would die. They would, however, be entitled to try to stop them from jumping.

, you are reading too much into it. I am saying that the concepts exist. And that the target of those concepts also exists, as a concept. And they still have physical presence as neurons in our brain.

every one of them are formed as psychological defects, and in that case incest is immoral — Christoffer

That is just eugenics for the disabled.

, I'd agree.

, I completely agree. There are very few instances where there isn't some imbalanced power dynamic that would cause it to be a toxic relationship.

. What a strawman. Bearing any children would be better than bearing no children, or would you be in support of eugenics for the disabled?

,

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

, because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done.

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist.

, I appreciate your ability to compromise issues to reach a larger demographic. I think that political outrage is ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats should both be more neutral and have more conversations. Civil disagreement is what would kill the two party system. If a greater portion of both groups were more open to political discourse, both sides would be less radical. I also think that focusing on economic issues more than social issues would cause more people to be democrat.

, could you please explain this line of reasoning? I am genuinely confused. How do you have a logic statement that contradicts itself?

, I said that everything exists, not that everything has the same utility.

, I would say that there is no distinction between the matrix and the real world, or at the very least that it would be useless to do so. A simulation exists in a physical sense. It exists as lines of code in a server.

Sure, both exist as paper, but only one of them exists as money. A distinction between fake and real paper would be meaningless, but the distinction between fake and real money is meaningful. — jkop

The only reason people use it as money is because people think it is money. People thinking that it is useful is the only reason it is actually useful. I am not saying that everything has the same use, I am saying that since both exist as concepts, they both exist.

, This isn't the compositional fallacy, because in this case it isn't a fallacy. Whenever I think of a giraffe, neurons in my brain exist in the physical world that represent the giraffe. The matrix does exist, as lines of code in a server. There are physical switches inside the computer that represent what happens in the matrix.

, even though both bills can't be used for transactions, they still both exist.

That isn't how that works. I could say if p, then q. Just because q is true doesn't mean p is also true, just that if p is true, then q is also true. These statements don't work when flipped. I am saying that most atheists wouldn't be atheists if God could be proven to exist.

Stoicism wasn't something that required effort. Stoicism, to me at least, was just the natural state of somebody's mind when they have lived a life of hardship. It isn't that they tried to restrict their emotions, it is just that they have seen worse.

Murder is a legal term — AmadeusD

I said fundamentally, which means that they have the same effect of terminating life.

If anyone could prove the existence of God, there would be very few atheists.

They should, and have already, arranged peace meetings. Say what you want about Trump, but foreign countries respect his power and fall in line.

murder isn't fundamentally different from abortion. Any descriptor of the beginning of life that could be mentioned could be countered by giving an example of an adult human with those characteristics. Ex: A person in a coma that isn't conscious. A person with a pacemaker that doesn't have a heartbeat. The only question that matters is: Why is murder wrong? And from that question comes the following question, why does life have value? My opinion is that life can't have value, because life itself is the value. Murder is wrong because it extinguishes the possibility of the victim to live a full life. With that reasoning, even a painless death is immoral. Here are some common arguments for abortion, and why I think they are wrong. "My body, my choice": It isn't your body, otherwise you couldn't kill it without harming yourself. If it was your body, it also wouldn't have to be removed. There are also multiple arguments about the quality of life after birth. But, life is more valuable than non life, so unless the majority of kids in foster care are suicidal, then your point is null and void. Please respond with more arguments for abortion.