Abortion not allowed

[Esquilax]

Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says. It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life. Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life? Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?

I already told you why. It's because I actually thought about why I value life, specifically what the distinguishing characteristics that I found valuable were, and when I did that I could not rationally conclude that the thing I would mourn for when a person dies is that their heart would no longer be beating, or their hair would stop growing.

The biological signs of life are not the things we value. In fact, they are important only insofar as they allow the consciousness, the person inside the body, to persist. I expand the value of sentience, by the way, to animals too; the value of my dog is not in the fact that I need to keep feeding him to keep him alive, but rather that he's my dog. I mentioned this before; I value sapience, not biology.

And so do you, by the way, and here's a simple thought experiment to prove it: you have a child, and it dies. If I were to offer you a replacement child, just another kid at roughly the same age, would you accept that as a good idea? Why not? It's a human being, of the same age and gender; if what we cared about was biology then there's simply no reason why this wouldn't be an adequate replacement. Why mourn the dead child, unless we actually care about the person, and not the life signs?

I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

If god has all knowledge, it doesn't necessarily follow that he'll always make the correct, or morally justifiable decision. Not just as a product of the claim. You'd need to establish that he'd use that knowledge in correct ways.