No, I think we can put to death a 30 year old if he wants to die and is in terminal pain. He is clearly human. You guys have no evidence that shows the fetus is not a human baby and are willing to take a chance in killing it. That's not right. It has it's own DNA at conception and has brain waves and a heart beat soon in the pregnancy. The fact is you guys just don' care if it might be a baby. You'd rather be sleazy in your thinking and try to get away with killing what could possibly have all the dignity you have

Godel attempted to prove two things:

1) you can't prove that math is true and consistent

2) there are parts of math you can never prove from any group of axioms

This is the minimum of what he attempted to prove from everyone Ive asked and from all the sources I've seen

The comment I made about steel goes back to my reading of a book called LSD and the Search for God. It mentioned someone on acid who said he could taste the categorical imperative and that it tasted like steel (that is, as absolute). When I read this I thought "that is how I feel about mathematics!" and I went on to read a book about Post Modernism and Mathematics, and now I am in the middle of another book called Why is There a Philosophy of Mathematics at All. I am much more interested in the philosophy of mathematics than in the equations, I admit, and would rather read Heidegger of the foundations of mathematics than study equations. Having said that, I see that Russell's paradox refutes the very
idea of having sets UNLESS we give do credit to how language works. Post modernism has all along said that mathematics is based on relative language use, and although I somewhat agree with them on this, I do believe there could be a way to get to an objective mathematics that could show its truth and perhaps prove everything that is provable in its field. I have not misused what a set is because it's not complicated. Everyone says a set is a collection of members. 6 is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 taken together as a whole (I said nature but I should have said whole to be clearer). It's a set of 6 1's. The first 10 whole numbers can be taken as a group and can be a set. For a set to include itself, I agreed, is weird. That is why I asked if it can be shown that a set can include itself since i find this very awkward but also interesting. The Liar paradox is not identical to Godel's theorems. I know that. But I sense that there is something in language, like in Russell's paradox, that is tripping people up and encouraging them to hold Godel's position. If someone did math an LSD, for example, the situation of language's use in mathematics might completely change. We have to be very careful with language. That's all I am basically saying

If they are in terminal pain, yes. But not for lesser reasons like abortions are usually for

I think it is common knowledge that Leibniz envisioned a machine that could prove everything in mathematics and logic. I don't know what work he wrote this in. I was just looking through that video I mention for the Quine paper, but haven't found it yet. But if we say aliens can prove the consistency of mathematics and all of it, or God, or us in God-mode, it doesn't really matter. My point was that we need to strip math of all language (Becoming) and let it stand naked as the Absolute. Russels paradox shows how distorting language can be to numbers and maybe even the idea of set is based on language instead of numbers. I used sets as a "group of units" which is legit because that's it's definition. The set seen apart from the units is like 6 seen not as 1 1 1 1 1 and 1. A set containing itself seems like language encroaching on numbers, which you might agree with. I don't see why we need the word set at all or self reference either. Math should work seamlessly and I hope it can prove itself someday

The

If you read that carefully, he doesn't say that we can learn anything from the structure of the head but only from human expressions which show emotions

Learn the facts. Fetuses might be babies and abortion might be murder

Thanks for the detailed response. The videos I've seen on Godel is the In Our Time one from philosophyoverdose and the ones from actualized.org, all on Youtube. I was under the impression that Godel used the ambiguity of the Liar Paradox to formulate codes in mathematics. This reminded me of Russell's paradox. In common language "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" would contain itself if it didn't contain itself. A set containing itself would be very strange though and I don't think this paradox is a contradiction in numbers but in language. IF Godel's theorems were based on language, then they could be revised like Russells theorem. A fault in language should have no effect on numbers. I did say God (whether we are God or not) should be able to prove everything in mathematics. Self reference might be an illegal move in mathematics and could possibly be godel's problem. I don't know. Actualized.org had a video on relativism and mentions a Quine paper from the 20's where he discusses talking with aliens. Godel, being a Platonist, is setting up a whole theory he thinks is true for all species and divinities for all time. But an alien might have a numbering system wherein there is no self reference. As a genuine question, is it possible Godel put too much of human language into mathematics?

I've read that book twice. His final conclusion is that phrenology and physiognomy are false. He thinks the human is expressed in skull and face but that there is little you can deduce about character from them

Present the argument that fetuses are for sure not humans. Since you cant, it's obvious that they might be human. Isn't it obvious that you don't kill something that might be human? Its called basic respect for (here comes that that word) life. forget about the killing animals thing. I brought that up as an example. You're ok with killing something that for all you know is a full human baby. That is disgusting

Another example on this question is using tabacoo products. People spending money on their vapes is giving those companies more money to hook people. But as I said that is on those companies and people who decide to smoke. I use tabacoo for the same reason I eat meat. It makes life a little better. I've spent lots of money in my life on both. I admit animals and humans may have died, but that is from other peoples' choices. I can't live worrying about how my actions put someone else in a position where they can use my money for things I find wrong. To think otherwise seems scrupulous to me, which priests told me as a child as a spiritual malady of mine. I care for morality, but I consider myself cured of that malady

The

If you meant me as the OP, thank you. I am trying to learn through all this

All I am doing is giving a little money here and there which people make up their minds to use for bad purposes. My reasoning does satisfy me in this case. Being classified as scrupulous as a child by priests, I still see situations all over the place where things I do might lead others to do bad. I can't worry about all that. Giving money to McDonald's is different from going to get an abortion though

What i was saying is that I don't think I have to stop eating animals even though i am against killing them (a fetus to me is a very noble animal)

"If I kill this cow will you eat it" asks the cow-killer

"Yes but you shouldn't kill it" I respond

"Would you buy the meat" he asks

"Yes but I tell people I think it's wrong to kill the cow and I tell you that. I don't wish to put a temptation on you but if that happens so be it. It's your responsibility not to kill the cow, but if you do we can eat and talk more about how you shouldn't kill another one. I will continue to try to convince you."

I never said killing a cow is murder. I think it's wrong, but killing a fetus might be murder. They might be a full member of our species

I mean by your taxes of course

In my life I can't worry about how my taxes are used or how my food choices effect others. People have vital space they need to live in. What I do is totally different from a women going to get an abortion and the doctor doing it. Those two people in that situation I do blame. Me giving my taxes instead of worrying that one fetus might be killed because it is not like doing the act of abortion. This seems clear to me. You've probably paid for an abortion yourself

I wanted to add that my choice to eat beef does allow someone to kill a beautiful innocent animal. But I see it like this. We pay taxes even though they are sometimes used for Planned Parenthood. Meat helps my life be better and paying taxes keeps me out of jail. I don't choose to kill any creatures except bugs. If others use what I do as an opportunity to kill, that isn't my responsibility. I just eat the left overs. If someone is overly scrupulous.and won't eat meat, and are against abortion, they should in principle stop paying taxes too. Thanks

People say "females have freedom to do porn or not". But many argue that females are different from men and will have sex when the really don't want to at all. So pornography seems to be an avenue open for the abuse of women. Maybe it's ok for some of them. The thing is, if women are often pressured to a situation into doing what they don't want, it can be asked if abortion puts a pressure on a woman to do something she will regret. The spiritual ideal is to respect life. Speaking of freedom gives the temptation to the pregnant women

Also, in New York now for partial birth abortions they have a doctor there ready to kill the organism before it fully births and one to keep it alive in case it fully comes out. What if a new movement starts in philosophy that says you become of person when you reach the Mirror Phase and if a baby can't recognize itself yet you can put it to death. It's a scary escalation when you stop and think that they are killing these beings while they are being born

Pornography is demeaning to women many pro-choice women say. I agree that all sex work hurts females. Even watching porn is problematic because it's someone's daughter involved. I know I eat meat even though I know some jerk is going going to kill an animal to feed me. If I put the temptation before someone to kill an animal and an animal loses his life, that's something I have come to terms with. I am an animal too and like meat. I would not kill an animal unless a life depended on it. I also support the dropping of bombs in Japan because it saved more lives. If someone is in great pain I think we can put them out and end the suffering. I don't subscribe to Catholic teachings on these. Killing a fetus to me is like killing a silverback gorilla however. You just don't do that shit unless a life depends on it. If people want to be assholes and have abortions or kill elephants, I do judge them because they are not in the right path. There could be creatures inbetween a bug and amphibian that I would not know whether it is right to kill just as science could make some bionic life which you wouldn't know how to deal with. To get lost in the continuum is to forget about responsibility which we have to life in general

Thomas Aquinas said that reason produces will although it is dependent on it. This is a deep concept. As a materialist, I believe matter can produce both consciousness and conscience. The world started with gravity producing time, like reason producing will for the Angelic Doctor. You might find it strange to use Aquinas to defend materialism, but it certainly seems to work. Now within the universe, you say, the chances are unlikely that matter would produce life. But it is just as random to say God did this than some form of matter. We can't measure the whole universe. There are forces we might not know about. So it's just unfounded to posit a Person behind the scenes when matter alone can be the explanation

My tablet, since you didn't like the multivariate argument, could have tipped the scales in favor of life. Saying it's God is as random as saying it's a rock, mountain, or river that was the factor. You can't see the universe as a whole, so Craig's line of reasoning is just retarded

It seems obvious to me that women have the right to have sex but when the act is done abortion is a renaging on this act and putting it in the dumpster. It seems like a philosophy that eats itself, saying you have the right to kill your rights, but someone else can have the last word if they wish

I'll say in conclusion, that I thought once I presented full reproductive license as I see it, that is, as ontologically-structurally selfish, people would generally agree that abortion should never happen. I guess I was wrong about that

The reality is that nothing is definite in philosophy, but if you look with paternal or maternal care to embryos and growing life in a human being, you wouldn't kill it. My argument has been that this is a much healthier attitude to take than the liberty first mentality. What substantial argument do the pro-choice have besides the liberty argument?

Then name something in philosophy that is certain

I recently read the first half of Teilhards book The Phenomena of Man. You might like it

I think the object of metaphysics is rather blurry. Plato said that numbers are not part of the forms because they are imperfect (is 4 big or small? he asked). Physical objects for Plato were like shadows of another reality, and are imperfect as well. I've been reading Sartre's Being and Nothingness and am struck by his anti-Kantian approach. The world is there! he says. However, we know from relativity that's it's only "there" in a sense and in a certain respect. So we seem back be back to Plato and maybe Kant, wondering what is behind the whole thing. And that is metaphysics

Murder makes us savages more than anything. I brought up Freud as a possible explanation for sexual freedom. If there is one thing humans are free about, it's the ones sexual choices because this is to the species continued. If people don't want to live with the consequences of sexual freedom, why are they here? Why do they want to live and continue the species? Pro choice philosophy is a strange kind of nihilism

I'm not for forcing anything belief in anybody. But there has to be some limit when it comes to taking life. Would you say "abortion" two weeks after birth is something relative to the norms of society?

As for sex, I don't believe nature forces us to do these things. Freud for one thought our sexual choices were all made before we are 5 so everything is an unfolding from those choices. If you find you have freedom in it, then Freud was wrong about you but then you have responsibility which it brings. If you have no freedom sexually then you were a lustful kid says Freud. This all makes sense to me. The pro-choice stance is just the idea that the world is one big party and they want to party to continue

The father and the mother have the duty to defend the child and not decide for themselves when there is a child

You don't care because your not being paternal.

ANYTHING outside what science can measure could have been the force or factor to top the scales towards life. It could be that a puppy in a multivariate chewing on its toy caused this. And in his universe there isn't any unlikelyhood of life!

Design implies a designer. There doesn't have to be an intellect behind life, instead just some factor(s)

Also, a zygote even has its own DNA. I don't see how someone can in conscience take the chance and kill that. I don't even see how someone can support abortion unless they are willing to perform one themselves

Men are required to raise children who otherwise would be aborted too. On the other hand women can abort a man's child without his consent. So the situation actually seems like sexism against men and women hating that they are women

I am rather Gnostic when it comes to sex. I think generally it's a selfish act. Abortion is not just about babies. It's about people refusing to reach for the spirit and then denying someone continuance of life because of that choice. I am a materialist but believe in spiritual experiences

I am not sure when this happens. But women should take responsibility for their acts. "You don't bury someone who might be alive"

When does a person become a person?

I feel like your post was unnecessarily complex. If wombs were transparent, would you still feel the same way?

I think it's more likely a zygote is a person than a cyst. The cyst has my DNA. But point taken. I don't know when you can take life. I will continue to kill pimples, but I only kill bugs when it comes to fill creatures. Deer hunting sounds cruel to me.