Yet you've clearly stated that your own life is worth fighting for, thus your life has worth.  Why is it such a stretch to extend that worth to another person as well?  Why is your life worthwhile yet others aren't?

Simple: I'm not them.

My life has worth to myself because I'm ME and it's MY life. Can't say that for anyone else. Their lives have value to themselves, but as far as anyone else goes, all value I can see is subjective unless it's a matter of what that person can do for this or that other person(s).

What is the standard for deciding which life is worth saving and sacrificing for?  Most people would definitely state their own and are glad their parents chose life.

Meh heh. Basis? What basis? Subjective opinion, me supposes. And consideration of cause and effect, definitely--but that's not an issue of "worth," simply an issue of what the best course of action would be.

Throughout history, the death of a person is mourned and honored by those who love them.

But never by those who don't. Why d'ya suppose that is, hm?

Humans have established over the last several thousand years that life does have worth.

To certain people, depending on the person, relationship, situation, character of the person, so on and so forth. Personally, I think it's sad that some random person off in yonder distant country has to lose their mother or father or whatever, but honestly, I don't give much of a crap about that person or sweat the fact that they're gone, because that person's got no worth or significance to yours truly. Tell me, have you honestly ever grieved for someone you'd never even known or who'd never struck some kind of significance to you in some other way (i.e. the author of your favorite book or someone whose ideology you identify with or who you idolize)? I never have. Why? Because those nameless, faceless shadows walking in the background have no significance in my life. They're people, and I care about them in that distant way that my habitual empathy and compassion (two very subjective aspects of my personality, mind you) necessitate, but really, I wouldn't really be happy or sad if they died. Death's a fact of life that only really matters when it actually affects you.

If it didn't, we wouldn't have cemetaries and funerals.  We wouldn't grieve the loss of a loved one.  We celebrate losing things we don't want - like weight - yet grieve losing things that we do, things that have value and worth - like life.

See above.

Ragnar has stated that it is foolish to regret ending a life.  I have a good friend who is the product of rape.  Her mother felt that life was more important.  In the process, something good came out of something horrible.  I think her husband and four children would agree and are profoundly thankful to her mother for rejecting abortion.

Nah, it's not foolish. It IS foolish to go on regretting and regretting when the consequences are as hazy as the ones he's talking of, though. What is done, is done. What is, is. If the mother in that poem hadn't aborted, what would have happened? Would things still be as they are? Would her current family exist? Would things really have turned out better, or would she instead be writing bitter poems about how she really, really should have pulled the plug on the pregnancy? Only God, real or not, knows the answer to that one. And that, I think, is more or less the point Ragnar was driving at.

My life has objective worth to myself because I'm ME and it's MY life. Can't say that for anyone else. Their lives have objective value to themselves, but as far as anyone else goes, all value I can see is subjective unless it's a matter of what that person can do for this or that other person(s).

I just stumbled onto this from the other thread.

ob

It seems to me that all humans have objective value because all humans actually exist.

Not really. A counterfeit dollar exists, but it has no worth at all, monetarily speaking. Existence doesn't give a thing worth. Worth... heh... I just realized something I should've said earlier. I'm gonna stop this here and ask you a question: Where does worth come from?

P.S. In light of this new realization, I have to correct my former posts to exclude the word "objective" when it describes worth.

Whether one is emotionally attached to that human or not is another issue.  That is the issue of whether one is going to step out of their self-centered "I am the center of the universe" mentality long enough to acknowledge that the other human is emotionally attached to someone and that taking that person's life is harming not only that person, but those that person is attached to.

I don't have some kind of "I am the center of the universe" mentality, so much as I have a "I am the center of my universe" mentality. It's actually less self-centered than it seems--as opposed to the former, it's based mainly in differentiating between my subjective ideas (i.e. the stuff that makes me want to believe I am the center of the universe, if you follow) and the things that are definitely true for all people--the objective.

That is the point of that poem.  It isn't a bitter regret - but an honest acknowledgement of the harm that woman did to herself and her own child by denying it the right to experience life.

And that is why regret in and of itself if not foolish. But if regret is drawn-out or taken to unnecessary extremes, it becomes foolish. That's what I think, anyway.

And once regret has taught its lessons, it's best to let go of regret. Keeping it for too long has a way of killing people...

Certainly not because that person doesn't have worth.  That is solely because they haven't gotten emotionally attached to that person.  What you're saying sounds like, "Life has worth if I declare it to have worth.  See above reference to self-centered "I am the center of the universe" mentality.

Please include the words "to me" in the appropriate places. Then it'd be accurate.

Yes I have.  Why?  Because I understand that everybody is important to somebody.  Anytime I read about anyone suffering or dying, it does break my heart.  Everyone is someone's son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, mother or father.  I have reached a point where I realize that I am not the sole standard for value.  Something doesn't become true the moment I declare it true.  Conversely, someone doesn't become valuable the moment I declare them valuable.

Well, that's not something I can say about myself. I'm saddened by things, to be sure, but I don't count things that don't affect myself as being as important as those that do.

However, I agree when you say that someone doesn't become valuable the moment you declare them valuable. They do, however, become valuable to you the moment you decide that they are valuable to you.

Not really. A counterfeit dollar exists, but it has no worth at all, monetarily speaking. Existence doesn't give a thing worth.

Then look at the real dollar. Not worth much on its own, of its own volition. The only worth comes from us--how much value we place on it, see, and how much value we place on the gold behind it.

I have a two part answer for you.

Part One:  That, my friend, is the crux of the difference (in my eyes) between theism and non-theism. I gather loud and clear from the non-theistic posts here that worth is totally subjective. Whereas in a theistic worldview, worth comes from God.

In which case, the question as to whether or not people have any intrinsic "worth" depends on whether or not there actually is a God. To that end, anyone to whom God is an uncertainty or a wisp of imagination can't be expected to see intrinsic value in humans--and thus that abortion might be wrong--and it's impossible to prove it to them. You would first have to prove God before you could do that.

Now, the legality issue: unless we live in a religiously-driven government, which this nation is not, I can't see any way the government could be reasonably brought to illegalize abortion completely, since the main reasons for that depend on "worth," which to practical eyes is subjective. Illegalizing abortion for any reason that invoked some intrinsic "worth" of the unborn baby, that'd be a religious law by nature. Is there any way to declare abortion legally wrong without invoking religious "wrongs" to do so?

Part Two:  Actually, I'm not so sure of that.  I think it's more a question of how broad you are willing to look.  I don't have an exaggerated sense of my own worth in that I do not believe I'm more or less worthy than others.  Because of that, I don't hold to the view that worth exists because I declare it to.  I'm not the sole source of worth.  I honor other people's worth as much as my own.  My neighbor's mother is worth just as much as my own because she has just as much worth in my neighbor's eyes as my own mother does in my eyes.  I know how much I would hurt if someone killed and ate my mother.  I am not willing to, nor do I have the right to inflict that kind of pain on another person.

Well, you don't really understand what I was saying if you think I ever even suggested that I was the sole source of worth. I said (and go back and check, if you like) that I'm the sole determining factor of what has worth to myself. The fact that something has worth to myself does not make it valuable in general, or valuable to another person--its only value exists in my own head. Rather than trying to A) consider said subjective value pig-headed and eliminate it completely; or B) consider said value absolute and intrinsic, and push that value on other people to accept; I instead C) accept that value as being my own determination of worth, embrace it, and act according to the values I have determined (double-meaning there, if you follow it).

I've witnessed first hand what the viewpoint of self-declared worth can do.  It leads to child abuse, totally broken families, and really damaging behaviors.  After all, if it's totally up to me to decide how worthy a person is, it is also totally up to me to decide whether that person deserves to be allowed to go to bed feeling safe or whether they can be a sex toy for another person.  I'm sorry if putting it in such graphic terms is offensive to anyone.  I do not mean to offend.  That is the inevitable result of that attitude.

Yes, it is. I'll be the first person to admit it. Happily, my worth-determining is not binding to anyone. That means anyone--myself, someone else, everyone else--is free to step in and do something. I can change my value-assessment and/or my actions; someone else can step in and hit me with whatever justice has for me. It's a question of the individual, and it's a fact of life that individuals often do things wrong. Oh, well, that's just too bad. Look on the bright side--there are other individuals to keep that individual in check and, if that individual gets out of line, to put that individual in his place.

History bears out what I am saying.  Anytime a person makes themselves the sole judge of worth of another life, the other life is now secondary.  Slavery, human sacrifice, women and children being treated as property, and so on and so on.

So free will is officially evil, then. Alright, got it.

And, what exactly is the difference between "the" universe and "your" universe?  Actually, I think that's a very cleverly disguised justification.

I explained that to you in my last post. Go back and read it again, please.

It is definitely true for all people that they have someone in their life they value.  You are clearly stating that the worth held by someone besides you is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, because the worth held by myself is irrelevant to anyone other than myself and the worth held by other is irrelevant to me--all worth, being subjective at heart, is equally irrelevant and thus equally meaningful. So since there's no overpowering worth, the worth (since it won't just go away--everyone clings to their own seperate worth-assessments, you see) must cooperate with itself--my worths and others' worths must be forced to coexist or come into conflict, and how that interplay plays out is determined again by the participants. It's a matter of how we choose to view other peoples' worths, Liz. How we react to them, see. And oftentimes, what other worths we determine as a result.

Agree.  However, value to me isn't the sole worthy criteria.

When did I say it was? -_-' Don't read between the lines, Liz, that part's written in a language only I can understand.

Conversely, Hitler declared that the Jews weren't worthy to him.  On what grounds can you possibly condemn his actions?  According to what you're saying, he had every right to make such a decision and act on it.

He had every right to make such a decision and act on it. Conversely, we had every right to stand up and stop him. Conflict of worths, Liz, that's all. I can confidently stand up and say that Hitler was a madman, however, I also choose to step back and recognize that he was only a madman according to my chosen worths. And THAT recognition is the difference between "THE universe" and "MY universe," Liz.

Going back to how this relates to abortion, I know several women who can't have children and can't afford to adopt.  Why?  Because babies are so scarce in America.

Really! Scarce. Hm. Well, only if either fertile males or fertile females are scarce, I suppose. But I've seen plenty of babies around here, so I don't see how you reach that conclusion.

Even women who can afford to adopt wait for years for a baby, or end up adopting from another country because we are killing all of our own unwanted children.

Oh, adoptable babies are scarce. You should have added that descriptor. In my mind, less parentless kids is a good thing. Really, you shouldn't look down on a derth of motherless-and-fatherless kiddies as being a bad thing just 'cause it means people who want to make them un-parentless can't do so. It's like saying lack of murder is bad because it doesn't give us the opportunity to bring people back from the dead. -_-'

I've held a woman while she cried about the millions of babies being aborted in this country.  She and her husband tried for over ten years to get pregnant.  Those unborn children have tremendous worth in the eyes of these other women.  What possibly gives a woman the right to kill her own child and destroy someone who has tremendous worth in the eyes of another all in the name of convenience?

What gives that other the right to put such tremendous worth on that someone? The answers are the same, you know.

On a practical side, we'll see how thrilled the baby boomers are about their abortion victory in a few years.  The 40 million babies aborted aren't contributing to Social Security.  Could that possibly play a part in why it's going to be bankrupt in another 20 years?  We are not even reproducing enough to replace our existing population.  Thus, we have more older people (with increasing medical expenses and retirement payouts) dependant on less younger people.  I can't see the post-boomer generations being too happy about being taxed to the hilt to pay for Social Security and Medicare, can you?   Or, the millions of boomers having to go without medicine and homeless because the younger generation in charge won't give them anymore?  Especially when they're already being taxed to the hilt just to pay interest on the huge boomer created deficits?  Yep, killing off 40 million junior taxpayers was an absolutely brilliant strategy.  Way to go boomers!

Yay! Less people crowding our country into starvation! Oh, but wait--they were supposed to pay for our Social Security. D'OH!

There's never gonna be a solution that doesn't have a downside, Liz, I'm sure you know that...

Sorry for the sarcasm.  It just never ceases to amaze me the utter stupidity of mankind.  Selfishness never begets anything good.  Never.

*shrug* Neither does denying others the right to be selfish, 'sfar as this agnostic can tell.

I am pro-life personally, pro-choice politically (I do still hope the choice is for life, though).
One proposed "compromise" is, leave abortion legal, but not one thin dime of government money (read: 'taxes") will be spent on an abortion for any reason.

Neil Boortz said,
"I promise I won't have one."

sounds fair, since I'm against taxes, anyway. But then what happens when the mother has to go on welfare? Maybe the abortion would cost the taxpayers less?

I would support paid, voluntary sterilization one hundred percent with my tax dollars.  I don't like paying for abortions.

I support involuntary sterilization. On welfare with a kid? ZAP! No more kiddies for you, freeloader :)

Remember - I'm not the one arguing for potential futures of unborns ... which could, in theory, apply to sperm and egg.  I have no problem with contraception except for its limitations.