Debate: Should abortion be made legal?
Side: no

My objection has been against treating any such ascription (human) as a rationally defensible argument unto itselfWouldn’t your position also be applicable to actual murder? As a nihilist, you see no special status or value in that which is human, therefore your argument for abortion applies equally to actual murder, no?An utterance is literally defined as an act of uttering, so the distinction you wish to draw between them is tautologically precludedAn utterance is literally defined as “a spoken word, statement, or vocal sound”, but don’t let facts get in the way of your position. The process of regarding or ascribing is subjective, true. But the stimuli that triggers a given sense is not subjective, which is why our “regarding” is not arbitrary. Non-objective is not the same as arbitrary.if I were to say that what you call a cat has the qualities of a tree, how could you possibly argue otherwise except through appeal to your own regard for that object in question?I can argue otherwise by appealing to your regard of the object in question. If the qualities you describe are those of a cat, but you insist on calling it a tree, you have taken the non-objective and pretended it is arbitrary. If your mind is truly as arbitrary as that, then I need not worry, there would be no conversation on the matter as you would be too insane to converse. Our experience is subjective, but the world that creates our experience is not. It is the objective world that has formed you and your ability to experience it. Therefore, I need not appeal to my own experience alone, but our shared experience of that which is objective.from what basis do you warrant your position that there is a "human element" in a human fetusFrom the basis that a human fetus can be distinguished from other types of fetus. I am not begging the question. If someone identifies a fetus, and I ask them what kind, when they respond that it is a dog fetus, I will understand the dog element in the dog fetus. It’s tautological. A thing is what it is. But I do not have any reason to trust your subjective regard over and against my own (nor do you mine)That’s true enough. If two people are alone in the wilderness, one identifies a tree (with the qualities thereof) and the other identifies the same as a cat (with the qualities thereof), then they are experiencing the same objective reality in such vastly different ways that one must be insane. The insane person will never believe this fact, nor, in reason, should they. But most people are not insane. Most people experience objective reality in similar enough ways that communication and agreement is possible. Thus when I am confronted with someone who does not regard a fetus as having a human element, all I need to do is ask what kind of fetus. If they say a human fetus, then I can ask what makes them say so. If they say that it’s no kind of fetus, then we should all be concerned with how it got inside that lady.it is not rational to alter or defend to others our attitudes towards a situation solely on the basis of what we ascribe to the relevant objects. This is because the objective circumstances remain wholly unalteredIt is the subjectivity of regard that makes argumentation concerning ascription so important. If I tell you not to cut down the tree because it is actually your horse, neither I nor you have altered the reality of the horse. Nonetheless, your inaccurate regard makes all the difference in how you conduct yourself. Thus, it is rational to defend our attitudes toward things based solely on what we ascribe to them. The accuracy of a given ascription matters.All positions are ultimately rooted in non-rational premisesThat position certainly is.I observed that were you consistent in applying that logic, then the expression of all other philosophies you also find questionable should be questionable too. At no point did I speculate as to whether you did apply that logic consistentlyActually, you stated that if you are consistent in this view then you should find the expression of any view that differs from yours questionable. I do not actually disagree with your reasoning here, except that you presume that Nihilism necessarily claims a correct or winning positionFor reasons already stated, I find Nihilism problematic as it concerns intellectual interactions. For the reasons you just stated, I find Nihilism problematic for one’s personal intellectual well-being. Saying “there is no truth” or “truth cannot be known” has the same internal contradiction as “there are no absolutes”.I do not accept that valuing existence is necessary to existing. I think that comes from non-nihilistic philosophies, rather than from within it. Existence does not need any value - objective or subjective - to be, because it merely isFirst, you never said what you mean by the word value, which was actually the question. Second, existence on your part requires certain things for its continuation. That being the case, it is not simply a matter of automation. Knowing what you mean by the word “value” is necessary to determine if your continued existence is in contradiction with your philosophy.