Pedro,
Chain posting is a sign of mania activated by a trigger.
Anyways, yes, since iambiguous doesn’t have an “I”, it’s impossible for his posts to exist. He then calls everyone but him shallow when they reply to his posts.
Considering, according to iambiguous, the line “bring it down to earth” was never uttered by him, well toss that aside and show you an actual philosophical accomplishment, mine:
“No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms - ecmandu”
The reason Iambiguous doesn’t like this proof, is because it is not only the most down to earth state of being that possibly exists, but because everyone and anyone can immediately falsify it.
He’s shown repeatedly that he doesn’t want a proof answer to his “question” (remember, he doesn’t exist)
So, here’s the objective answer to abortion, Iambiguous has been really intent in getting it:
Per the consent violation proof, where all someone has to do is ask “is this violating my consent?”, if they say “yes”, then they can declare reality is presently, inherently evil. If they conclude that conflicting goods, or as I say, mutually exclusive consents, are unresolvable, then they can conclude that reality is ALWAYS inherently evil.
Now, for the abortion proof:
Some people who are born, not only violate the consent of the mother, but of the entire human population, including themselves. So the “pro-lifer” ( which are truly few and far between (the reason “pro-lifers” get so fervent is because they are doing more anti-life stuff than others, they’re using projective anger - you know the phrase “thou doth protest too much”?")) anyways, the “pro-lifer” will argue, “but what is someone everyone wants to be here is aborted”?
There’s a proof for this: they can’t be aborted by the definition of the ideal, a person who can possibly be aborted by the mother or outside forces cannot meet the criteria of someone everyone wants here.
This is a definitional proof.
Someone might say, “what about the ideal of someone that nobody wants to be here” in terms of the ideal, that’s counterdefinitional, nobody wants it, thus there is no definitional or consent ideal.
There, that’s your proof Iambiguous.
Again, Iambiguous is not even a decent thinker.