Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Mavorpen]

With every post of yours I read, I grow to hate "philosophy" more and more.

I have reason to doubt his credentials.

Hence why "philosophy" is in quotation.

[Mega City 5]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college). But that's quite alright. My only point is as follows:

"All things [which are subject to gravity]" are subject to gravity because they display features x, y and z (whatever those features are). Let us suppose, hypothetically, an existent which did not display those features. It would not be subject to gravity.

This in turn justifies me to say: "Because such a thing is the kind of thing that it is (i.e., such as not to display features x, y and z), it is not subject to gravity. Why, then, are these other things subject to gravitational forces? Because they do display features x, y and z. Why do they display such features? Because they are the kinds of things that they are (i.e., bodies or constituents of bodies)."

So no, it's not wrong to say that a stone falls because it's a stone. A stone falls "because of gravity," and it is subject to gravity because it is a body (or else, a certain kind of body). A stone is a certain kind of body. Therefore, a stone falls because it is a stone (because all stones are bodies).

And finally, I think it's wrong to hypostatize or reify gravity. Gravity simply expresses the tendencies or interrelations of certain kinds of things with determinate natures. In other words: "Because bodies are the kinds of things that they are, this is how they act (i.e., gravitationally)."

[Godular]

I have reason to doubt his credentials.

Hence why "philosophy" is in quotation.

Ah, gotcha.

Reminds me of that caninope fella.

[Mega City 5]

if you don't want to talk about abortion you should post in a different thread.

It's directly relevent. The argument for abortion ultimately rests on a false premise, i.e., on the all pervasive and all encompassing moral primacy of consent. That's just wrong.

[Ardavia]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college). But that's quite alright. My only point is as follows:

"All things [which are subject to gravity]" are subject to gravity because they display features x, y and z (whatever those features are). Let us suppose, hypothetically, an existent which did not display those features. It would not be subject to gravity.

This in turn justifies me to say: "Because such a thing is the kind of thing that it is (i.e., such as not to display features x, y and z), it is not subject to gravity. Why, then, are these other things subject to gravitational forces? Because they do display features x, y and z. Why do they display such features? Because they are the kinds of things that they are (i.e., bodies or constituents of bodies)."

So no, it's not wrong to say that a stone falls because it's a stone. A stone falls "because of gravity," and it is subject to gravity because it is a body (or else, a certain kind of body). A stone is a certain kind of body. Therefore, a stone falls because it is a stone (because all stones are bodies).

And finally, I think it's wrong to hypostatize or reify gravity. Gravity simply expresses the tendencies or interrelations of certain kinds of things with determinate natures. In other words: "Because bodies are the kinds of things that they are, this is how they act (i.e., gravitationally)."

Gravity acts on everything that exists. It's called an universal force for a reason.

[Mavorpen]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college). But that's quite alright. My only point is as follows:

"All things [which are subject to gravity]" are subject to gravity because they display features x, y and z (whatever those features are). Let us suppose, hypothetically, an existent which did not display those features. It would not be subject to gravity.

This in turn justifies me to say: "Because such a thing is the kind of thing that it is (i.e., such as not to display features x, y and z), it is not subject to gravity. Why, then, are these other things subject to gravitational forces? Because they do display features x, y and z. Why do they display such features? Because they are the kinds of things that they are (i.e., bodies or constituents of bodies)."

So no, it's not wrong to say that a stone falls because it's a stone. A stone falls "because of gravity," and it is subject to gravity because it is a body (or else, a certain kind of body). A stone is a certain kind of body. Therefore, a stone falls because it is a stone (because all stones are bodies).

And finally, I think it's wrong to hypostatize or reify gravity. Gravity simply expresses the tendencies or interrelations of certain kinds of things with determinate natures. In other words: "Because bodies are the kinds of things that they are, this is how they act (i.e., gravitationally)."

In other words, a stone falls because it exists. What fascinating insight. Truly none of our feeble minds could have comprehended this complex piece of information without you here to enlighten us.

[Godular]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college). But that's quite alright. My only point is as follows:

"All things [which are subject to gravity]" are subject to gravity because they display features x, y and z (whatever those features are). Let us suppose, hypothetically, an existent which did not display those features. It would not be subject to gravity.

This in turn justifies me to say: "Because such a thing is the kind of thing that it is (i.e., such as not to display features x, y and z), it is not subject to gravity. Why, then, are these other things subject to gravitational forces? Because they do display features x, y and z. Why do they display such features? Because they are the kinds of things that they are (i.e., bodies or constituents of bodies)."

So no, it's not wrong to say that a stone falls because it's a stone. A stone falls "because of gravity," and it is subject to gravity because it is a body (or else, a certain kind of body). A stone is a certain kind of body. Therefore, a stone falls because it is a stone (because all stones are bodies).

And finally, I think it's wrong to hypostatize or reify gravity. Gravity simply expresses the tendencies or interrelations of certain kinds of things with determinate natures. In other words: "Because bodies are the kinds of things that they are, this is how they act (i.e., gravitationally)."

Your point is fundamentally incorrect. As I previously stated.

[Mavorpen]

if you don't want to talk about abortion you should post in a different thread.

It's directly relevent. The argument for abortion ultimately rests on a false premise, i.e., on the all pervasive and all encompassing moral primacy of consent. That's just wrong.

No, it isn't. Consent is quite literally the only reason why he have a society and act upon our social nature as social animals.

[Mega City 5]

Gravity acts on everything that exists. It's called an universal force for a reason.

If there were incorporeal existents, would gravity act on those? If the answer is "no," then corporeal nature, not existence, is the reason for gravitational influence.

[Grave_n_idle]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me, since I haven't actually taken a physics course (either in high school or undergraduate college). But that's quite alright. My only point is as follows:

"All things [which are subject to gravity]" are subject to gravity because they display features x, y and z (whatever those features are). Let us suppose, hypothetically, an existent which did not display those features. It would not be subject to gravity.

This in turn justifies me to say: "Because such a thing is the kind of thing that it is (i.e., such as not to display features x, y and z), it is not subject to gravity. Why, then, are these other things subject to gravitational forces? Because they do display features x, y and z. Why do they display such features? Because they are the kinds of things that they are (i.e., bodies or constituents of bodies)."

So no, it's not wrong to say that a stone falls because it's a stone.

Wrong. It absolutely is wrong. Being a stone is irrelevant. If you had a transmutation machine and could turn a stone into the same mass of any other material, it would be identically affected by gravity.

As you said, you don't understand physics.

[Arkinesia]

Without going crazy here, this argument is pretty weak, since anyone can define murder in any way they please.

The definition provided is the legal definition of murder, thus since we're discussing legality, it is the only one that matters.

Basing a discussion on abortion purely in terms of popular plebiscite is a colossal waste of time, quite frankly. There's only one answer then, you have to be pro-choice and agree with the law, or anti-choice and disagree with it.

That doesn't engender discussion, really, it just leads to a polarized “debate” lacking anything resembling depth or intellectual value.

[Godular]

Gravity acts on everything that exists. It's called an universal force for a reason.

If there were incorporeal existents, would gravity act on those?

Read my previous posts on the subject. Bloody hell.

[Dyakovo]

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

You probably know more physics than me

That's a given.

[Mega City 5]

Wrong. It absolutely is wrong. Being a stone is irrelevant. If you had a transmutation machine and could turn a stone into the same mass of any other material, it would be identically affected by gravity.

As you said, you don't understand physics.

Reread my previous post. You aren't substantially disagreeing with me. You are engaging in a mere verbal dispute.

[Godular]

The definition provided is the legal definition of murder, thus since we're discussing legality, it is the only one that matters.

Basing a discussion on abortion purely in terms of popular plebiscite is a colossal waste of time, quite frankly. There's only one answer then, you have to be pro-choice and agree with the law, or anti-choice and disagree with it.

That doesn't engender discussion, really, it just leads to a polarized “debate” lacking anything resembling depth or intellectual value.

And what of the remainder of the OP?

[Mavorpen]

Gravity acts on everything that exists. It's called an universal force for a reason.

If there were incorporeal existents, would gravity act on those? If the answer is "no," then corporeal nature, not existence, is the reason for gravitational influence.

Incorporeal things don't exist.

So yes, it's existence that is the reason.

[Ashmoria]

if you don't want to talk about abortion you should post in a different thread.

It's directly relevent. The argument for abortion ultimately rests on a false premise, i.e., on the all pervasive and all encompassing moral primacy of consent. That's just wrong.

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

[Godular]

Wrong. It absolutely is wrong. Being a stone is irrelevant. If you had a transmutation machine and could turn a stone into the same mass of any other material, it would be identically affected by gravity.

As you said, you don't understand physics.

Reread my previous post. You aren't substantially disagreeing with me. You are engaging in a mere verbal dispute.

Your point is fundamentally wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wrong. It absolutely is wrong. Being a stone is irrelevant. If you had a transmutation machine and could turn a stone into the same mass of any other material, it would be identically affected by gravity.

As you said, you don't understand physics.

Reread my previous post. You aren't substantially disagreeing with me. You are engaging in a mere verbal dispute.

No, I am substantially disagreeing with you. You were absolutely, objectively, categorically wrong.

You don't understand physics - by your own admission.

[Mega City 5]

Incorporeal things don't exist.

So yes, it's existence that is the reason.

Non sequitur.

[Dyakovo]

Hence why "philosophy" is in quotation.

Ah, gotcha.

Reminds me of that caninope fella.

That's hardly fair to Caninope…

[Shiraan]

Now I'm not an "isms" or "pro-anti" kind of guy, and abortion is a subject even I won't touch, and I'm opinionated as fuck.
But what if, in a society where bio engineering humans was commonplace, we were all modified to to be neutered, and births happened in some kind of artificial womb?

[Mavorpen]

Incorporeal things don't exist.

So yes, it's existence that is the reason.

Non sequitur.

Yes, your argument is a non sequitur. And?

[Godular]

Incorporeal things don't exist.

So yes, it's existence that is the reason.

Non sequitur.

Coming from you, this post made me laugh with great vigor.

[Mega City 5]

then you DO want to talk about your opposition to legal abortion. how confusing.

it turns out that the argument for abortion rests on whatever the arguer wants to use as a premise. I tend to argue that it is no one else's business since the state has zero interest in forcing women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

Oh, cool. In that case, then I'll answer that I could care less whether or not a woman remains pregnant. The State shouldn't command her to remain pregnant (such a command would be absolutely silly and meaningless). The State should forbid her from murdering her unborn child.