Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Mavorpen]

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 .

It's "corporal nature" is because it exists. Therefore, we have been right this entire time and your arguments otherwise are absolute garbage.

[Ashmoria]

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.

the thing is that "philosophy", like logic, is dependent on what you put into it, eh? you get a different answer depending on what you think is important or "right".

the best way to use philosophy to decide a societal moral issue is to start with the conclusion you want. *I* want the conclusion that will never make me a reproductive slave to the state. so *I* start with "women should have the right to decide their own reproductive fate (within the bounds of biology) and I easily find a philosophical rational for legal abortion.

[Ardavia]

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 is a fundamental force in the universe.

It affects everything in said universe in a certain way, namely it causes things to be attracted toward things that are big enough.

Stones, being part of said universe, are thus attracted toward bigger things, in this case the planet below our feet.

Next.

[Mega City 5]

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.

When you say that there is no "stoneness," you are effectively denying that stones are really stones.

See, this is the problem with modern philosophy: nominalism, voluntarism, solipsism.

Unlike Descartes or Hume, I am perfectly fine with staying that stones are really stones, independently of what I think about them.

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?

Justice implies a relationship between persons. What could it possibly mean to show you an "atom" of justice?

[Galloism]

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 -

You know, at one time, I used to skydive.

One guy came in a little too hot and wound up doing a barrel roll and slammed into the side of a mule (by mule, I mean something like this), and broke his arm. Since it was his left arm, and he drove an automatic, he insisted he could drive himself to urgent care, where they set his arm and put it in a cast.

He accepted responsibility for his actions by getting the result of those actions rectified.

Why does that apply to a broken arm but not an unwanted pregnancy?

[Shiraan]

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

"AND ISN'T A SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE"
everything that's made up of matter has mass, regardless of what it's made of. sub atomic particles aren't made up of matter, because they're energy. and therefore don't have mass.

[Mavorpen]

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.

When you say that there is no "stoneness," you are effectively denying that stones are really stones.

See, this is the problem with modern philosophy: nominalism, voluntarism, solipsism.

Unlike Descartes or Hume, I am perfectly fine with staying that stones are really stones, independently of what I think about them.

This "problem" is the result of discarding the nonsensical gibberish pompous asshats created in an attempt to explain something they couldn't explain. Now we have tools to explain them. Science. And, frankly, "stones are stones," is straight gibberish within the context of science.

[Mega City 5]

the thing is that "philosophy", like logic, is dependent on what you put into it, eh? you get a different answer depending on what you think is important or "right".

the best way to use philosophy to decide a societal moral issue is to start with the conclusion you want. *I* want the conclusion that will never make me a reproductive slave to the state. so *I* start with "women should have the right to decide their own reproductive fate (within the bounds of biology) and I easily find a philosophical rational for legal abortion.

I think that this basically reflects the actual rationale of social liberalism in general. It's all voluntaristic. I want x to be true, dammit, and whatever I have to say to justify it, then so be it (no matter how ridiculous, how unreasonable, and how very contrary to our most basic human insights)! [Unless, of course, the things that I say to justify it actually entail other things that I don't want, at which point I'll just close my ears and say "lalalalala, I can't hear you."]

[Ardavia]

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.

When you say that there is no "stoneness," you are effectively denying that stones are really stones.

See, this is the problem with modern philosophy: nominalism, voluntarism, solipsism.

Unlike Descartes or Hume, I am perfectly fine with staying that stones are really stones, independently of what I think about them.

Stones don't have a specific trait of "stoneness" beyond what we assign to it.

Gravity does not care if we assign "stoneness" to it, because gravity affects everything on a scale beyond humans.

Justice implies a relationship between persons. What could it possibly mean to show you an "atom" of justice?

Simple. Show us that your vaunted "natural justice" exists.

[Ardavia]

I want x to be true, dammit, and whatever I have to say to justify it, then so be it! [Unless, of course, the things that I say to justify it actually entail other things that I don't want, at which point I'll just close my ears and say "lalalalala, I can't hear you."]

It's nice you're summing up your behavior so far so nicely for us.

[Dyakovo]

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.

"You not understanding" =/= "us not explaining".
Frankly, the explanation given is one that even a 5 year old can grasp.

[Mega City 5]

Stones don't have a specific trait of "stoneness" beyond what we assign to it.

Therefore stones aren't stones.

Simple. Show us that your vaunted "natural justice" exists.

Do you think that consent matters independently of specific legal requirements which say that it does?

[Mavorpen]

Do you think that consent matters independently of specific legal requirements which say that it does?

Yes. Consent is an application of our social nature.

[Galloism]

Stones don't have a specific trait of "stoneness" beyond what we assign to it.

Therefore stones aren't stones.

Simple. Show us that your vaunted "natural justice" exists.

Do you think that consent matters independently of specific legal requirements which say that it does?

Considering it's a significant portion of the basis for modern thought and justice, I'd say it has certain significant weight.

However, that doesn't make it immediately subject to gravity.

...

Couldn't resist.

[Mega City 5]

Yes. Consent is an application of our social nature.

Then you believe in natural justice. QED.

[Ardavia]

Do you think that consent matters independently of specific legal requirements which say that it does?

Yes.

[Wallenburg]

the thing is that "philosophy", like logic, is dependent on what you put into it, eh? you get a different answer depending on what you think is important or "right".

the best way to use philosophy to decide a societal moral issue is to start with the conclusion you want. *I* want the conclusion that will never make me a reproductive slave to the state. so *I* start with "women should have the right to decide their own reproductive fate (within the bounds of biology) and I easily find a philosophical rational for legal abortion.

I think that this basically reflects the actual rationale of social liberalism in general. It's all voluntaristic. I want x to be true, dammit, and whatever I have to say to justify it, then so be it (no matter how ridiculous, how unreasonable, and how very contrary to our most basic human insights)! [Unless, of course, the things that I say to justify it actually entail other things that I don't want, at which point I'll just close my ears and say "lalalalala, I can't hear you."]

That sounds exactly like your behavior.

[Mavorpen]

Yes. Consent is an application of our social nature.

Then you believe in natural justice. QED.

No, I don't.

[Mega City 5]

Considering it's a significant portion of the basis for modern thought and justice, I'd say it has certain significant weight.

Then you believe in natural justice. QED.

However, that doesn't make it immediately subject to gravity.

...

Couldn't resist.

That was pretty funny.

[Mega City 5]

Yes.

Then you believe in natural justice.

[Dyakovo]

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 -

Choosing to get a abortion when one has gotten pregnant but is not prepared to be a parent is being responsible.

Also, you're right on one count... I won't end up in heaven. Hard to go somewhere that doesn't actually exist.

[Ardavia]

Yes.

Then you believe in natural justice.

No, I don't.

[Mega City 5]

No, I don't.

Marvopen: I believe that, because of our social nature, consent matters independently of the dictates of human positive law. [I.e., it is naturally unjust to violate consent.]

Marvopen: I don't believe in natural justice.

Well, Marvopen, it looks like Marvopen disagrees with you.

[Shiraan]

Stones don't have a specific trait of "stoneness" beyond what we assign to it.

Therefore stones aren't stones.

dude, what the fuck. just... what the fuck

are you INTENTIONALLY not understanding this? that's the only thing I can logically chalk this up to, willful ignorance.

[Galloism]

Considering it's a significant portion of the basis for modern thought and justice, I'd say it has certain significant weight.

Then you believe in natural justice. QED.

You mean the legal rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing?

Totally. Those are both good ideas.

Not sure what they have to do with abortion, though.