Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Mega City 5]

I mean, there's not much more to say.

Gravity is a fundamental force of the universe. This has been explained.

If it exists in this universe, it's affected by gravity. Nothing is exempt. This has been explained.

Stones exist. They are thus affected by gravity. This has been explained.

Next.

Well, congratulations. You've told me absolutely nothing.

[Ardavia]

Keeping in mind abortion isn't murder, can she remove the parasite-like being from her body at any point?

I mean, if it can't survive without her, that's basically its problem.

To my mind, there's no difference between this question and asking whether or not a woman can leave the parasite-like being which is her newborn infant out overnight in icy weather and allow it to die from exposure.

After all. If it can't survive without her, that's basically it's problem, right?

False equivalency.

The born child isn't actively draining her body of resources against her will.

Next.

[Galloism]

Keeping in mind abortion isn't murder, can she remove the parasite-like being from her body at any point?

I mean, if it can't survive without her, that's basically its problem.

To my mind, there's no difference between this question and asking whether or not a woman can leave the parasite-like being which is her newborn infant out overnight in icy weather and allow it to die from exposure.

After all. If it can't survive without her, that's basically it's problem, right?

A newborn isn't parasite like, as it can breathe and survive without a particular person providing its nourishment, and we already permit her to abandon her newborn to the government who will care for it without any questions.

This is a nonsensical comparison.

[Arkinesia]

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?

The first point is silly for the reason I already mentioned. I guess killing an innocent person with the death penalty, who has been legally convicted by a jury of his peers, is totes legit and is in no way murder? Again, this argument fails on a fundamental level, the legal system is not some monolithic structure that is unchanging. If it were, black people would still be 3/5 of a person in this country.

It's utterly comical, coming from the position of a former philosophy student, that someone would claim murder necessitates illegality or criminality. I guess the individual deaths of Jews in the Holocaust is “senseless killing” and the injection of lethal STIs into blacks was just “bad luck.”

Fucking absurd. It was murder, because it only requires the malicious killing of an innocent human in my view. If someone doesn't present an immediate threat, and the killing is done in malice, it's murder. This is why I consider the death penalty to be murder in any instance. Also, I'm fully aware that my view is hardly some kind of fringey weirdo woo-woo bullshit. My thoughts on this subject are anything but original.

The other arguments, however, generally hold water and I even agree with basically all of them.

[Ardavia]

I mean, there's not much more to say.

Gravity is a fundamental force of the universe. This has been explained.

If it exists in this universe, it's affected by gravity. Nothing is exempt. This has been explained.

Stones exist. They are thus affected by gravity. This has been explained.

Next.

Well, congratulations. You've told me absolutely nothing.

Not my problem you refuse to acknowledge basic concepts.

[Ashmoria]

aren't y'all waiting for the moment that he states that a 5 pound stone falls 5 times faster than a 1 pound stone?

yes

and now he knows that we're waiting for it

and thus he won't state it

great job at being a buzz kill

oops

my bad

[Mega City 5]

False equivalency.

The born child isn't actively draining her body of resources against her will.

Next.

I just don't think that it's relevent. At least under a certain construal, a newborn child could be classified as a parisite. It requires its mothers constant attention, nourishment, care, etc. It is entirely helpless and unable to fend for itself. It "lives off" its mother, so to speak.

And consent is all that matters, right? Surely the woman has a right to say "screw it, I don't consent to taking care of him or having him in my home or feeding him."

[Mega City 5]

Not my problem you refuse to acknowledge basic concepts.

"Basic concepts" of which you apparently have no further understanding than the mere word and cannot in the least bit explain.

[Mavorpen]

And consent is all that matters, right? Surely the woman has a right to say "screw it, I don't consent to taking care of him or having him in my home or feeding him."

Of course she does. Which is why we have adoption.

[BK117B2]

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.

The argument against legal abortion ultimately rests on a false premise: that there exists some right/natural law/inherent authority/etc to control over the bodies of other people.

[Mega City 5]

If the state bars a woman from getting an elective abortion, that is forcing her to remain pregnant.

Next.

False. The State wouldn't be forcing her to do something. It would be forcing her not to do something, i.e., to murder her unborn child.

[Ardavia]

False equivalency.

The born child isn't actively draining her body of resources against her will.

Next.

I just don't think that it's relevent. At least under a certain construal, a newborn child could be classified as a parisite. It requires its mothers constant attention, nourishment, care, etc. It is entirely helpless and unable to fend for itself. It "lives off" its mother, so to speak.

And consent is all that matters, right? Surely the woman has a right to say "screw it, I don't consent to taking care of him or having him in my home or feeding him."

Yes.

And she can then leave the infant up for adoption, because it can actually survive outside the womb.

It's not her problem if the fetus that was removed during the abortion of her pregnancy wasn't able to.

[Mavorpen]

Not my problem you refuse to acknowledge basic concepts.

"Basic concepts" of which you apparently have no further understanding than the mere word and cannot in the least bit explain.

Gravity is specifically due to space-time curvature as a result of an imbalance in the distribution of mass-energy.

[Ashmoria]

False equivalency.

The born child isn't actively draining her body of resources against her will.

Next.

I just don't think that it's relevent. At least under a certain construal, a newborn child could be classified as a parisite. It requires its mothers constant attention, nourishment, care, etc. It is entirely helpless and unable to fend for itself. It "lives off" its mother, so to speak.

And consent is all that matters, right? Surely the woman has a right to say "screw it, I don't consent to taking care of him or having him in my home or feeding him."

that happens every day eh? you are allowed to relinquish your child to the state or adoption agency who will find it new, willing parents.

[Mega City 5]

Of course she does. Which is why we have adoption.

Pfffft. Who are you to tell her that she should have to go all the way to an adoption agency and take all of the relevent cares to see to it that the child is safe? In the interim, the child is a mere drain on her mental health, her resources, etc. If she wants to leave it out overnight in the icy weather, who are you to tell her she can't?

[Shiraan]

Well, congratulations. You've told me absolutely nothing.

things that fall do so because they have mass, and therefore weight (weight is not the same thing as mass, mind you, if you take a rock to the moon it will WEIGH less, but the mass stays the same.), not because they're stones. anything that exists (and isn't a sub-atomic particle) has mass, and again, it therefore has weight.

so, you're both wrong. you're WAY more wrong then the other guy, but you're both wrong.

It's not a matter of what it is, or whether or not it exists.

It's because it has mass.

[Galloism]

False equivalency.

The born child isn't actively draining her body of resources against her will.

Next.

I just don't think that it's relevent. At least under a certain construal, a newborn child could be classified as a parisite. It requires its mothers constant attention, nourishment, care, etc.

No. No it doesn't. It requires someone's constant attention, nourishment, care, etc. There's no rule it has to be the mother's.

[Mega City 5]

Gravity is specifically due to space-time curvature as a result of an imbalance in the distribution of mass-energy.

Ok. Let's try this again. Without using the word "gravity" or "exists," explain to my why stones fall in plain terminology which everyone can understand and agree with.

[Ifreann]

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).

The fundamental laws of the universe, such as gravity, don't operate on a human scale. There is no "stone-ness" that determines a stone's interactions with gravity, because "stone" is a category of things that humans made up and physical reality does not turn on what humans think of things.

What do you think this implies about what you've been saying about natural law and obligations arising from our nature as humans and justice and so on? I can show you gravity. Can you, to quote Death, SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE?

[Mavorpen]

Of course she does. Which is why we have adoption.

Pfffft. Who are you to tell her that she should have to go all the way to an adoption agency and take all of the relevent cares to see to it that the child is safe?

Me? No one. The State? Well, it's the State.

In the interim, the child is a mere drain on her mental health, her resources, etc. If she wants to leave it out overnight in the icy weather, who are you to tell her she can't?

Again, I can't. The State can.

[Shiraan]

Gravity is specifically due to space-time curvature as a result of an imbalance in the distribution of mass-energy.

Ok. Let's try this again. Without using the word "gravity" or "exists," explain to my why stones fall in plain terminology which everyone can understand and agree with.

MASS.

[Mega City 5]

things that fall do so because they have mass, and therefore weight (weight is not the same thing as mass, mind you, if you take a rock to the moon it will WEIGH less, but the mass stays the same.), not because they're stones. anything that exists (and isn't a sub-atomic particle) has mass, and again, it therefore has weight.

How would you go about proving that all existents have mass?

so, you're both wrong. you're WAY more wrong then the other guy, but you're both wrong.

It's not a matter of what it is, or whether or not it exists.

It's because it has mass.

This is basically what I said a few pages ago. A stone falls because of its corporeal nature, since it belongs to corporeal nature to be subject to quantity .

[Northern Freikur]

I just think that if someone does not think it all through, they could just put it up for adoption instead of getting rid of it.

So, that would be: Yes, we should we force women to suffer through pregnancy because they failed to meet your arbitrary standards for not being "reckless"...

What, you can't handle being responsible? If you have any children, I wouldn't be surprised if they hate you. After all, you really don't care about murdering them when they are defenseless. Who knows, maybe you will see them in heaven from that pit you'll be in after we are all judged. Unless you make some serious changes, it's highly likely that you will end up there. - the blood of innocents is on your hands -

[Mavorpen]

Gravity is specifically due to space-time curvature as a result of an imbalance in the distribution of mass-energy.

Ok. Let's try this again. Without using the word "gravity" or "exists," explain to my why stones fall in plain terminology which everyone can understand and agree with.

There's an imbalance in the distribution of the mass with respective to the stone and the Earth. The two entities exist as a result of having mass and therefore cause a curvature in spacetime.

Yes, I used the word "exist." But fuck it, if you ACTUALLY want to understand, you wouldn't say that I can't use specific words. But that's the thing. You DON'T want to understand, because it's much easier for you to make your laughably horrendous arguments when you're ignorant about the subject.

[BK117B2]

Gravity is specifically due to space-time curvature as a result of an imbalance in the distribution of mass-energy.

Ok. Let's try this again. Without using the word "gravity" or "exists," explain to my why stones fall in plain terminology which everyone can understand and agree with.

Let's try again with the actual topic. The very basis of your argument is that some natural law grants just authority to forbid people from having abortions. You've been asked about your 'natural law' multiple times, but have avoided answering.

Come one, support your case. Bring forth this natural law that you claim and explain how it told you to criminalize abortion