Pucci (Negation) vs Zeni (Pro life) | Abortion

Man, I think we're just propositionally justified in believing in pro-life. You're propositionally justified in believing in pro-life. Yeah, I'm proposition justified in believing that abortion is immoral.

And I'll just give the justification for right now. What was you? Okay.

Okay. You're justified in believing abortion is immoral. And then what was that last thing?

Yeah, I'll just give the reason why. So, I check scans. Okay.

Yeah. Because the argument is pretty simple. Uh it basically just says that um because the fetus is numerically identical to me and killing me is protontomorally wrong then killing the fetus it brings as much harm if not even more than killing me.

Okay. So this is a view of numerical identity. Okay that's fine.

For any organism if ex does not die at any point after time A then this organism still exist. Okay. Okay, cool.

Uh I guess I would accept the first part if it is the case that you posit some sort of like persisting property that makes this organism the same organism. Yeah. So if something like if something doesn't harm this organism before time A then or after time A then it's the same organism obviously.

Yeah. No, I mean I mean okay that that wasn't what I said. I what I said was that I'm just reaffirming I'm just reaffirming the premise.

I'm just saying like it's a pretty simple premise. I don't think you're going to disagree with it. Okay.

No, no, no. It's fine. But I'm still saying that there has to be some sort of like persisting property to say that organism X is organism X.

You agree with that, correct? What? What?

Yo, wait. Did he leave? Oh, okay.

Okay. Yeah. Did you hear what I said before you leave?

Yes. It has to have some sort of persistent property. Yeah.

I mean, yeah, because if we're going to say that organism X uh is going to be the same is going to be organism X, I assume there's going to be some sort of property there that makes it organism X, not organism Y. Wait. Okay.

Wait. Just repeat your contention for prem. Wait, are you disagreeing with premise?

Okay. Okay. Okay.

I disagree in the sense. I disagree with this thing in the sense because this is talking about numerical identity and I disagree with it regarding the fact that organism X is going to be organism X over time. So you think that over time organism X changes into another organism like let's say organis I think I think I don't think there's any persisting property of an organism.

No. Uh okay. So like if a living organism never ceases to exist or and never dies then it still must exist, right?

You agree with that? I mean sure that's just trivial. Okay.

Okay. That's basically that's the whole that's the whole premise but like yeah that's why pretty common. No yeah yeah that that's fine.

That's why I say it's pretty trivial. But if we talk about numerical identity that's why I think the numerical identity part comes in after. So, premise two, premise two is just let FF be the fetus I've developed from.

So, obviously I've developed from the fetus. Um, I don't think you disagree with that. Do you disagree with that?

Um, I'm I'm unfamiliar with what that means. What do you mean that you develop from the fetus? So, uh, so, okay, look.

So, uh, if if Okay, look. So, before I was a sperm and then the sperm I became a egg. Wait a baby.

Before you were a sperm. Yeah. Basically, the whole point is just that just a pregnancy cycle like uh I was a baby and before I was a baby I was a fetus like and then I was a ziggo or something.

I I don't know. The point is just that um for me to exist right now, previously I had to have been a fetus. Um I'm very I'm very unconvinced by this because I'm very and I'm also very concerned with why you said that like uh you know the psych then you included you know you being a sperm.

I don't think anyone was a sperm at one point. I think that's very implausible to even say. No I'm just saying that look look uh so like let's say uh see you know the pregnancy cycle right?

So like when a baby is born. Yeah. Yeah.

Sperm fertilizes egg, zygote comes, zygote implants there as an embryo and then it develops into a fetus. Yes. And then turns into a baby and then the baby is pushed out and then I'm zeni, right?

Or I'm katiri, right? Uh what was that? The baby push out and what else?

And then and then that's me. I'm that baby, right? I would say I mean no, I don't think you No, wait.

Look, I don't you think the baby that was pushed out of the mother isn't the same person? Wait, wait. Yeah, I would agree in that part of that you like you right now, you were, you know, the baby, right?

But I just would disagree with the fact that you were the same entity as you were before a mind was developed. Well, uh do you think that um Okay. So, do you think that the fetus has died or something like the fetus need to exist then I came about from that?

Well, because this is a dispute about um you know identity in a sense. I would just say that like um may like okay I would say that if you say this is I'm looking at your argument right now and you say if FS has not died and FS in this case is used as fetus then FS still exist and then FS has not died you know therefore FS still exists you know there it's valid in the sense that you know it's a modus ponent that's fine and all but I contend with it in the sense that I don't think that what makes what makes FS is the fact that it's you know organ MSMX. That's the part that I disagree with.

Uh, okay. So, like, okay. Um, so do you think the FS has died at all?

Uh, died in what sense? Like, so the F died and then from that death I I'm born. You think that is what happened?

Death. I would say I would say there could I guess if we use this semantic I would say that there's some sort of like transformation in a sense because I believe that once the mind develops you're there's going to be a distinct entity. So if you want to use that terminology sure okay so if the fetus never cease to exist and if it is still a living organism then it still exists right I I don't think it exists as the same entity that has a mind.

know that's that's my main contention. Damn. Did everyone stop talking or is it my Wi-Fi like tweaking?

Oh, okay. Yeah, my mom was calling. But uh do you want me to continue with the argument?

Uh yeah, I didn't I didn't hear anything. like you just like disappear. Okay.

So, if the fetus never ceased to exist, um basically it never died or was destroyed and if it still has a live and Okay, if the fetus never cease to exist and if it is still a living organism, then it still exists. That's [ __ ] Okay, that's not what he's saying, dumbass. What I'm saying, wait.

Okay, so I just want to like, you know, make it very clear. What I'm saying is that like in a sense, I would agree that like, you know, we are human or like that. Cool.

Cool, cool, cool. That's like trivial in my opinion. What I'm saying is and what I'm giving contentions to is the fact that I believe that we're going to be a distinct entity once the mind develops.

Once we have like what's going to be a property of a mind, I believe that that is going to be a distinct property. So in my relevant distinction, uh what do you mean? Wait, wait.

How is what a relevant distinction? The mind. Yeah.

How is Yeah. So I believe the mind is going to be the thing that necessitates having a future of experiences. you know, the the thing that's going to make us identical to the type of thing that can have these future experiences.

And without this, I just believe that we're going to be as relevant as a plant. So, if it is the case that pre- mind, right, we you try to make the claim that it is the same as having a mind, I would just have to disagree because there's obviously just going to be a distinction in its ontology. Okay.

So, you think that the mind is what distinguishes a fetus from me, right? Uh, I would say that Okay, wait. I would say that the mind is what distinguishes you from not having a mind.

I don't know if that was clear. The mind is Can you like reword that for me real quick? Yeah.

Wait, what was it? Can you reword that? Okay.

The mind is what's going to distinguish you as a unique entity. Uh, so because I have a mind and previously didn't have a mind, you're not the same entity. I don't think you're the same entity as premind.

No. And and the mind is a sufficient enough uh distinction to make that um to say that right the mind is the sufficient enough what so the mind is a sufficient enough distinction to go to say that me and the fetus weren't the same being. Yeah.

Well uh I mean okay well I think that identity isn't just based on like uh what's it called? I think identity isn't based on mental traits. Like I I'm thinking position.

I'm I'm glad. Okay. Look, I I I mean I obviously I can like understand that that's going to be an animalist position, but like and I understand that's your position, but I was I'm simply disputing with the fact that I don't believe it is going to be this biological aspect that makes us us cuz this is the same thing I asked C.

Okay, look what's going to be. Do you think that like uh masturbation is wrong to the sense that if we ejaculate and we let thousands of sperms die, we should be punished for it the same way we I should be punished if I like kill another human being. Uh okay.

Are you trying I think that's a loaded question. Oh, okay. Okay.

So, like I like I said, this is the same thing I see earlier when he sped out. So, you think do you think that ejaculating is like wrong? Do you think ejaculating is wrong?

I mean uh page I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Okay. You don't think um ejaculating is wrong?

Okay, cool. So and then you believe that like abortion is going to be wrong. Correct.

Yeah, I think abortion is wrong. Okay, perfect. Abortion is wrong.

Jerking off uh isn't wrong. Okay, perfect. From a first glance, okay, I think if we like add more aspects to it, then yeah, but from like a first glance, I don't think it's ejaculation.

I mean, yeah. I mean, sure, sure. Like that that's not really the main point of contention.

What I'm going to ask is that, okay, do you believe like let's assume it's possible because I think it is very unlikely that you can't do this. Well, actually, I think you can. Um if a woman takes pills to um prevent implantation, meaning that the zygote is going to end up, you know, dying uh in the process, do you think she did something wrong there?

Uh was she previous was she previously pregnant? Is she like taking the pill? You you can't be I mean you can't be pregnant until implantation happens.

I'm just saying like if she prevented implantation, there's a zygote. This is a human organism. Do you think she did something wrong with taking this pill?

Uh, yeah. Yeah, sure. Okay.

Okay. Perfect. Perfect.

Okay. Now, she would do something wrong if she took pills to prevent the zygote from implanting, which is going to end up resulting in the zygote dying, meaning a human organism dying. Okay, cool.

So, why is it wrong to take this pill to stop the zygote from it from, you know, continuing on its, you know, path? But it's not wrong to jerk off. Hey, I just take back that claim.

I think Sure. Then uh if you wrote it like that, then yeah, I think jerking off would also be wrong. Like we have good reason to believe that jerking off and taking pregnancy or anti-reg pills are both wrong.

Okay. Do do you think that a woman should be punished or it should be seen as an immoral act to kill the zygote? I think it's an immoral act.

Yeah. But I don't think she should be punished for it. Okay.

Okay, cool. When is there no is there no way in like your argument like for example an embryo fetus that they should get punished for it? Uh you said what?

Okay. Okay. It's not a woman shouldn't be punished if she kills this human organism in the zygote stage.

You agree with I think I think it's an immoral act and I I just don't care if she's punished. The the point I'm Okay. It's an immoral act.

Okay. Perfect. Perfect.

So it's an immoral act. Fine. Fine.

Fine. We can stick there. We don't have to talk about the punishment or like uh the legality behind it.

Okay, cool. So, but then you said you retracted your statement about being like primmaashi about, you know, masturbation, but then you also believe that masturbation is also immoral. Yeah.

Yeah. Because now that you've given this argument, I realize that my my my reasoning beforehand was flawed in that and believe in that. Okay.

And that masturbation is immoral because uh because it kills many of zygot. What's the wrong maker of killing potential zygot? Yeah.

No, like you you just said that. All right. Look, you said that killing or I agree that killing a zygote or taking the pregnancy pill to kill the zygote is wrong.

No, if they're also killing the zygote by masturbating, then that would also be wrong. You're you're not really killing a zygote, though. You're killing something that can possibly create a zygote if fertilized.

Okay, then. Yeah, I think Sure, bro. Sure.

That's also wrong then. Uh the potential of it becoming a Zyo and you taking away from that potential is wrong. I Okay.

So, it's wrong to jerk off because of a potential that doesn't exist yet. There's a possibility he's going to become a person with future experiences. So, yeah, sure.

It's wrong. Okay. He I mean, you know what?

That's fine. That's fine. Perfect.

Um Okay, cool. So then we laid out the the groundwork. So masturbation is going to be immoral because it eliminates potential zygot.

Um and then it's also going to translate to zygot embryo and fetuses. Okay, cool. So when you talk about your argument that you laid out in scans and the thing that I told you that I disagreed with was mainly the part the motus ponent of ifs FS has not died then FS still exists.

FS has not died. Therefore FS still exists. what I take like dying to be it's gonna be something related to like you know it's mind property like like I mentioned earlier mind property yeah I don't think that the yeah so so you think that becoming brain dead is equal to being dead yes okay what okay what if someone has become brain dead then they have the potential to become unbrained it is it at that point that's just going to be like kind of contradictory due to the fact that when you're brain dead that's just basically like you gone.

Like there are some very there are some outliers. Sure, I can definitely say there are some outliers. But if you tell me, oh yeah, if you're brain dead, I'm already going to assume that it is the case that you're just gone permanently.

There's no bringing you back and the only way to what if they had like the potential to become brought back. Like it's just a hypothetical scenario. If if in a hypothetical scenario, a dead person could come back.

No, a brain dead person. Yeah. And if I take a brain dead person to be dead, then I mean I mean there in that in that hypothetical scenario, sure, I would object to that.

But what what does that do to the position? Yeah. The reason why I brought that up is because well, um if it is to be the case that they still have the potential to live a future like ours, then you're you're uh you're protecting the potential that they could live or they can continue living a life like ours.

Oh, okay. Why shouldn't we grant that same moral consideration to a fetus? Uh, why shouldn't I grant that same moral consideration to a fetus?

Wait, we're we're just to be clear, we're still talking about the brain dead thing, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Because Oh. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Like again, this goes back to the thing. I can definitely grant the future like ours argument, but I just don't think it's going to apply to um you know an entity without the property of a mind because it is going to be the case that we're not if you if you talk about numerical identity, right?

You just can't I just don't believe that future like ours can account for the fact can actually properly um object to the identity objection because the fetus can be a mind. It's just not it's just going to be a different entity than the one that actually has a mind. So, I don't think that fetus has a future like ours.

I think the one that actually has a future like ours is the one with a mind. Well, then uh then uh I I don't like I don't think that All right, how do I say this in a way that doesn't seem strict? Um okay, look, let me just give like a scenario.

So like if you fall into a coma or if you s suffer total memory loss, you are temporarily and permanent you temporarily and permanently lose your psychological continuity or continue continuity. But intuitively, yeah, but intuitively you still exist. You still exist intuitively, right?

I don't think you exist as the same person. No. Why?

Well, look, I mean this like again this is like a very trivial like objection. Like if you tell me like we get into like this situation where we lose all our psychological profile and let me just steal man it a little bit more, right? And if we lose all our psychological profile and then like when we wake up we we have like a new psychological profile.

I can say the previous person died and a new person arose. I don't think there's anything wrong with that being said. Uh okay.

Uh so so you think that uh the the identity is just fully psychological like psychological and uh mental? I think the I think identity is dependent on the mind and what actually necessitates a future like ours is the mind. Yeah.

So so so you disagree with animalism basically? Uh I mean I would also I do have my uh issues with animalism but like um it's not necessarily even a dispute to animalism. the fact that I just disagree with the fact that what makes us the same person is our human organism because I don't even think the organism is a persisting property.

Okay. Uh then how would you go against the uh the what's it called? The animal I forgot what it was called but there's argument here.

Let me just thinking animal argument. Yeah, the thinking animal argument. Can you send it and scan so I remember it?

Yeah. There's a human animal sitting in here. Homo sapien organism is occupying the space you're in.

The animal is thinking. It's having thoughts. You are doing you are the one doing the thinking.

You're conscious and you're having thoughts. Therefore, you are the animal. You said that in scans, right?

Okay. Um P1, there's a human animal sitting here. Sarah, okay.

The animal's thinking. Okay. You are the one doing the thinking.

Okay. Wait, wait. I'm Wait.

I'm very I'm very confused. Why Why is it in P2 Why is it the case that the thinking has to be necessitated by the animal? Uh okay.

Um the point is just that um the animal is perceiving. He's having reasoning and feelings. So if you believe if you believe that you're thinking then the animal the animal me the uh the body me is also thinking um well like no wait that that's not really the contention I had the well actually now I have a like with what you just said I have a second objection but like the first objection is I don't see how it is the case that the animal is going to be the one that's doing all this cuz that's just going to that's just going to presuppose the animalist view.

I take it that all these things that are mentioned below P2, the animal is perceiving, reasoning, feeling, and having thoughts, I don't believe those are traits true of a human organism. I think those are traits true of a mind. So, that's my first contention and that's going to be with P2.

Um, I would agree with P3 in the sense that when we talk about you, we're talking about the mind because I believe that what makes us the a uh the same entity is going to be the mind. But I I disagree fully with P2. I I don't think the human organism presupposing that like you know animal and human organism are going to be used interchangeably.

I don't think they're going to be having the ability to think. Okay. Uh well if you deny the animal thinking then you need to explain um then you need to explain who is performing all all your mental activity.

But yeah actually that's it. So if you deny that the animal is thinking then explain how or explain who's doing all the mental activity. Wait, if I deny the animal is thinking, I have to explain who's performing all the mental mental activity.

Yeah, there's a reduction of denial. So, uh basically what happens is whenever or if someone is to disagree with the reduction or the premise too of the argument and they need to explain who's doing all the mental activity uh like the who's doing all the mental activity for the animal. Okay.

Uh who's doing all the mental activity for the animal? I mean, do you think if I say, let's see, let's see if like you would understand when I say this. Do you think if I say that the organism is quote unquote doing, you know, these things, it follows that we are identical to the animal?

Uh, yeah. So, if you have two conscious thinkers and they're both on the same chair, then um and they're thinking the same thoughts, like they have the same line of thoughts, then it would be wildly counterintuitive to say that there's two animals rather than just saying that there's one animal that's made up of both mind and body. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

What do you mean by two animals? Or not two animals. I meant two people, like two conscious thinkers, like you and the animal.

What? What the [ __ ] I I want you to repeat that because I'm not going to lie after I asked you something like I just like lost my train of thought. Repeat.

What was your issues with saying that like it'll follow that if I say that the animal is doing the mental activity then it means suddenly that he is an animal. That's a chance. Okay.

Give me a second. So to avoid that counterintuitive process then it would just be very uh it would be very uh what's it called parsimmonious you say that there's two thinkers or there's not two thinkers but there's one thinker okay okay but if you if both you and the animal are conscious thinkers you got two thinkers in the center counterintuitive um yeah but like again like like I said right I can I can just say that the mind is the type of thing that thinks Right? And the organism is going to be the type of thing that is dictated by the mind.

Like you you're very well aware that for example um if we if we take this as an example of like maybe a human on a on an on um on a mech suit, right? When the human is going to be dictating what the mech suit does. Think of the human being the mind and then the mech being the organism.

Like just because the mind is going to be dictating all the activities that the organism does, it I don't see how it's going to necessarily follow that the organism is going to be what makes us us. Cuz again, like I said, my previous contention with that was the fact that if it is true that it is going to make us us. Not only are you going to have to like give me a reason to like believe that there like the organism is going to be a persisting property in the sense that um it goes back to your abortion argument, but again like uh animalism also like even though the thinking animal argument is a very popular defense for animalism, it also has like um you know its issues with it.

Yeah. Okay. Uh well then even if you assume for for argument's sake that um that I'm not the animal, the animal still has all the same behavior and neur neurological processes that you associate with thinking like mental activity and etc.

So unless you say that the animal is a zombie like a non-concious being um it's reasonable to conclude that the animal is thinking then you get that counterintuitive situation where there's two thinkers on a chair. Wait I Yeah. Yeah.

I I really again I don't really see how that falls because like look if we say that the animal is thinking we're not I don't think it it's going to necessarily mean that there's going to be two thinkers. I just think we I'm gonna take it that it's going to be that thinking is going to be occurring in this organism and that and that's what I mentioned with like the example of the you know the mech and the human because look just just because there's going to be thinking occurring in that organism and just because the mind is going to be the type of thing or brain I use both terms interchangeably dictates what this organism does. It's not going to follow that there's two thinkers and it's not going to follow that the organism is us.

That that's my main that's my contention. Well, then how do you how do you like lead away from this very counterintuitive situation where you have two thinkers on the chair? Wait, how what do you mean it's counterintuitive if I explain that I just take it to be that the organism is going to be the thing that is uh dictated by our thoughts?

Yeah, you're gonna have two you're gonna have two uh you're gonna have two thinkers on the chair or on the same chair thinking the same thoughts. No, I I reject that. I I've already rejected that and I explained why.

Okay. Uh well um we can conclude then. Okay, that's fine.

You can go with your conclusions. I'll meet up. Uh all right, sure.

Uh well then I just think that Well, okay. Oh, can I can I say one more thing before we conclude? Uh, yeah, that's fine.

Hey, can we think that animalism is just more parammonious than any other uh any other theory basically because animalism just says that there's one thing and you don't need to posit souls separate people or abstract mental bundles like the mind and stuff like that etc etc. So it avoids multiple entities which is basically the core of unpolitical part. So you want to like go against that then if if not then we can uh we we we can okay uh yeah I I mean I guess you know what no no before before we conclude uh I don't okay even if you add that that like thing about like animalism supposedly being a more parsimmonious view um and you account for like ontological parsimony just like stating this isn't really going to you know um say like anything like you're going to have to like give a view on how you know this onlogical par like parsimmonious view accounts for the fact that um you know it's more probability racing I you haven't really given that and then the second thing is that even even if you think that it's going to be the more parsimmonious view based on the thinking animal argument that you provided I don't think that it proves that it's going to be be um a more parsimmonious view because again like I understand the whole premise of the thinking animal argument but I reject it completely because if we take it another way semantically.

It's not necessarily that there's two thinkers. It's that there's going to be a conscious experience that is dictating this organism and the thoughts flow through this organism. But we can conclude if you want.

All right. Sure, man. Um I I don't want to say conclusion, so we could just stop here.

Hey, man. Good to be with GG.