(August 11, 2014 at 5:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: That's why I added in that bit about the factual case:all of the evidence we possess points to the idea that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and at the point of conception there is no brain, and hence no mind. Thus, in order to claim that one's identity begins at conception, you would need to disregard the evidence we have in biology.No, you just need to define "identity" in a way that doesn't begin with the emergence of the mind.
Quote:Morals aren't objective, but the values we use to determine morals are; living is preferable to dying, pain is bad, etc etc.Maybe, but adopting a moral system based on any of those is still an arbitrary choice.
Quote:Besides, when I said "maps to reality," I was discussing the factual and logical structures of the argument. Specifically, the pro-life case disregards large swathes of biological science in order to reach its conclusion, and doesn't map to reality because of that.True dat. Ignoring reality to go on one's emotional preferences is not a good way to argue. I feel the same way as a vegetarian-- people often ignore or undermine biological facts of animal suffering, or exaggerate biological "facts" of nutritional necessity, in order to "prove" what they just feel they want to be right.
