Abortion is generally immoral

I thank zmikecuber for his strong opening arguments. I will eventually attempt to address them, but first I must set-up my own argument, since the burden of proof is shared. On the surface, my arguments will seem terrifying, because of the implications. Please, consider my arguments carefully; try to avoid reacting viscerally. A1: Sentient life involves more discomfort than comfort Comfort/Discomfort (and suffering) definitions: In this debate, when using these terms, I will not necessarily mean the literal version of either words. An example of the literal kind of ‘discomfort’ would be to sit on something sharp, or to have someone shout in your ear. The kind of discomfort I will argue pertains to a lacking, a deprivation, if you will. It’s a tension, a feeling of not having. Simply put, suffering is a more extreme form of discomfort, such as pain felt after slicing your arm off, or the pain felt in losing a loved one. Discomfort is bad In a world where there is only discomfort and comfort (i.e. no context), no rational, sentient animal would choose discomfort over comfort. This is clearly evident, as all sentient creatures strive for things, so as to eliminate discomfort. It is only with context that discomfort could ever be considered preferable, such as a deal that if you were to be uncomfortable now, you would be comfortable for twice the amount of time afterwards. Therefore, it has been determined not by me, but by every sentient creature that this is an inter-subjective truth. Life is a negative-sum game Life is essentially a ‘negative-sum game’, in which there are states of comfort that all fall below the ‘0’, rather than anything that is truly positive. In other words, positives and negatives experienced are not opposites, rather, states of overall discomfort. Anything that is positive is, overall, a result of overcoming a negative; the discomfort always comes first (you fall below the zero first). To feel healthy, your body cannot be burdened with ailment. You cannot feel relief from scratching if you had no itch to begin with. To feel happy, you must have no lingering, serious discomforts. It is not sufficient a counter-argument to say that for every negative there is an equal positive always met, because discomfort requires only the existence of a sentient psychology; whereas, elimination of discomfort is not necessarily assured. For example, you cannot be sure that you will be hired for a certain job, yet you can far more easily wish that you could. Certain actions can produce more positive than negative, but only within themselves. For example, going to the fridge to eat whilst starving, would be an enormously positive trade (the discomfort of having to go the fridge and select food to eat etc., versus the elimination of starvation). However, given context, it would be apparent that you were unable to satisfy discomforts to begin with, hence the starving state that you found yourself in. Overall, the sum can never reach a true positive, as you have, in reality, only experienced great relief by suffering greatly beforehand. Permanent state of discomfort Through our perception, our mind gives us tasks. Production of these tasks is like the ‘building of broken chairs’, in that there exists no problem in reality outside of our perception. For example, a woman’s nails need not be coloured or manicured; it is only through a combination of a sexual drive and vanity does this ‘broken chair’ seem to need fixing. In other words, if you were without the filter of sentient psychology, you would be able to see that these ‘problems’, in reality, do not exist. Furthermore, the illusion that these broken chairs need to be fixed, need not exist. Does it really achieve anything to say ‘thank you’ after someone has done something nice for you, other than satisfy ego and other products of sentient psychology? Is there some greater purpose for this psychology that ordains its existence? Why must the psychology exist if it is designed to produce these broken chairs that need not exist in reality, yet only serve as motivation to eliminate discomfort, the discomfort that the psychology creates itself? It will never be enough to acquire one million dollars, as you could have ten million dollars, and for all the brilliance of earning such a large amount, as soon as the psychology becomes accustomed to it, more will be required. If you are able to resist the natural urge for more, then it will be another field of desire that will strike your attention, such as the growing of a simple garden, or the gathering of family. Either way, your sentient psychology will always want more of, or ‘one more time’ of anything. And such, it is apparent that a permanent state of discomfort rules whenever a sentient psychology exists, and that any comforts are loaned for but a mere instance or two, then the fabric of comfort is picked-at until morsels of the fabric remain. A discomfort is temporary, fine, but the production of discomforts is permanent. So far, death in inevitable There has yet to be a sentient being that has survived death, or even one that has the chance to live forever. All your hard work, all your study, all the improvements you make to yourself, will be erased soon enough, in the eternal abyss. As such, why go to such incredible efforts, in order to better something that won’t last? Why bother with this temporary existence? Of course, my argument here could be rendered moot, if my opponent proves that there is some sort of after-life, but the burden of proof is on him/her. Surprise investment analogy (unable to consent to birth) If you go investing (procreating) with another person’s life savings (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral. You do not own the person’s life savings, so you should not have the final word in how it is used. Even if the likelihood of you being able to increase the savings via using the savings is high (the child will likely have good health/a good life etc.), it would still be immoral to risk it without permission, much as it is immoral to sign contracts for people without their permissions. Even if you were brilliant in determining investment opportunities, you are still risking the money as you do not have 100% control over outcome of the investment. Sure, I think it would be incredibly fantastic to come home to a 50% increase in my life’s savings, yet I would think that I was violated in not being told that someone was essentially gambling with my money. But what if I came home to a 50% decrease and an apology that amounted to ‘well, that’s just life’? I would feel absolutely mortified and violated, wouldn’t you? As such, at the risk of bringing into existence terrible suffering, abortion seems like the only merciful option. Serious catastrophe What is all the comfort, overall in the world, worth in terms of the discomfort? What is the serious discomfort of a Holocaust worth it terms of comfort? One million enjoyable birthday parties, perhaps? What about WWII, could that be worth the relief of passing one billion mathematics tests? These events have happened as a result of human existence, but are they excusable? Clearly, these are terrible things that happen, and to perpetuate human existence is to perpetuate the chance of another catastrophe. If you knew that a Jew was to be held captive, before being gassed in a humiliating way, in exchange for you finding the ‘love of your life’, would you honestly look that Jew in the eye and say, ‘sorry, buddy, but I value satiating my biology over your brutal suffering’? No? Yes? Where do you draw the line? What if you were only able to meet the love of your life for only a week? What about Chinese people being born in to what is essentially slavery: working for next to nothing. Are all those seriously lacking lives worth sacrificing for your lifestyle? Is 1 hour worth of sweetshop labour worth your shirt? Is the shirt producing so much comfort that the discomfort of said labour is a positive trade? I urge you, as a reader, to think about the ridiculous amount of serious tragedy throughout human history: stone-age suffering (i.e. barbaric living standards, average age was 20 years), slavery, the Crusades, wars in general, the Holocaust, the Chernobyl meltdown, bloody revolutions, the rise and fall of Communism etc. None of these are positive overall, how can they be justified? What is so greatly positive that it can override these atrocities? Destructive Psychology as demonstrated through the Heroin Addict Perhaps this analogy might make my arguments easier to understand. When you see a heroin addict shooting-up, what exactly do you see? Do you see someone ‘enjoying life’? I put it to you that this is all humans are: just biology on an adventure to find different ways to please itself. The heroin addict is out of his/her mind, possessed by the demon that is the drug. The heroin addict’s purpose has no dignity and no purpose (outside of shooting up). Sure, in those moments after shooting-up, life is incredible/wonderful/sensational etc.; outside of those moments, it can range from a lacking to severe craving, and neither of those are desirable. Similarly, humans are possessed by a defunct psychology, which desires for this ‘heroin,’ and only temporary satisfaction can be met in the event of embracing the ‘drug’ – we’re all chasing chemical releases, nothing of real value. Conclusion (thus far) Since sentient life has a greater chance to involve more discomfort than comfort, it would be immoral to bring anyone into existence. The risk of serious, debilitating suffering is something that seems ludicrous to gamble with, especially when it’s in comparison to fairly trivial comforts. Furthermore, consent cannot be given, thus it’s immoral, in this sense, to bring people into this world. I’ll elaborate on what is meant by ‘real value’ in the next round, as well as respond directly to my opponent’s arguments.