all human beings, you, me and every one else in the world began our life in time and space on this world at the completion of conception. At the completion of conception there is a 100% human, 100% alive, 100% unique fully human being. That is fact, and non disputable

Every line drawn between conception and birth that allows abortion based on size or capabilities is arbitrary and variable.

In most and best current philosophical arguments about the morality of abortion, if not agreed, the personhood of the fetus is stipulated, because it is an irrational and losing argument. And the pro choice folks center their argument on if the fetus has a right to the use of the woman's body.

as you wish. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

you read 1 sentence of probability the best pro choice, pro woman argument and make a complete judgment of it. amazing.

what? Dr thomsons argument is completely about the right of the mother to control the use of her body, and it is completely a pro choice argument. What are you talking about

because the mother has no more basis in this argument, than the mother of a 1 year old would have.

However, this pro abortion argument is I think the best argument that account for roll of the mother, more specifically here right to determine the use of her body

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

here is the first paragraph which seems appropriate

The view that abortion is, with rare exceptions, seriously immoral has received little support in the recent philosophical literature. No doubt most philosophers affiliated with secular institutions of higher education believe that the anti-abortion position is either a symptom of irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument. The purpose of this essay is to undermine this general belief. This essay sets out an argument that purports to show, as well as any argument in ethics can show, that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

if you wish to read a dispassionate argument against the moral permissibility of abortion, prob a 15 minute read

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Marquis.pdf

And as an aside, my argument against abortion is completely secular, and completely based on reason.

Rubbish. Murder is illegal killing. So it is only murder if it counts as illegal, and if it counts as killing. The circularity of your argument marks its absurdity. — Banno

Do you believe the moral permissibility of abortion is a settled item, unworthy of challenge?

no clue where all that came from. Or what you think, or thought by my statement. My only point was, the first order question is, is abortion murder? If yes, all the social implications have to be evaluated against that, if it is not murder, than in that light.

As an example, the social consequences of unwanted pregnancies in your first post. I would assume these are different considerations if abortion is or is not murder.

you spent 3 days fighting it wasn't even reasonable, never mind a real possibility

every time you acknowledge the possibility of the counter position

If you say, God is. That is a faith based position, if you say God is not, that is a faith based position, If you say maybe either way, it is not a faith based position. Your last was you prefer, probably very strongly prefer the God is not, but allow the possibility God is, that is a maybe, and not faith based.

yea exactly, a point is just a location in at least a 2 demensional space. A point has no size. A line has size in one dimension l, in a at least two dimensional world from infinite to some l between 2 points on that line

By the definition in your argument - a supernatural entity or being - sure. Unless I become aware of a contradiction, I will think that there's a chance, however slim, as per logical possibility. It's also possible that unicorns and goblins and space tea pots actually exist, provided we don't rule that out by defining them as fictional. Possibilities and remote probabilities are trivial in this context.

This is basic shit. I'm not unreasonable. I've never been a strong atheist, except where there's a contradiction ruling out the existence of God. — S

Close enough- good with that.

What....can’t a point be thought of as located on any one axis of a Cartesian system? Only a geometric figure requires two dimensions; lines and points can be conceived as having but one, because if you spin a line as if you were looking at it end-on it shouldn’t just disappear, so you could think of it as seeing a point. Conceptually speaking. — Mww

No, sorry each and every point is, by definition, a point in space described by a x and y coordinate. All the points on the x axis, have x= to something and y = 0. With the 0 only meaning no change along the y axis, in relation to wherever we decided to say 0 was.

The formula for a line is y=max+b, Same thing goes as above all lines have an x and y value.

You're looking for an easy target, and I am not one. I wouldn't consciously commit 100% to anything whatsoever, unless I thought that it was 100% certain. That's not the case with regards to anything that you've confronted me with, so you can't rightly accuse me of having faith. — S

So, would it be fair to say then, that you believe there is some chance, there is such a thing as God?

only issue I have with that is, is just probable enough to eliminate it being faith. In that sky diving example, if the probability of the chute opening was .51, would you jump because it was probable it would open, if it was .99 would you? Where exactly between those two does reason end and faith begin?

Kind of why I like faith is where a 100% commitment is required, like jumping out of the plane, where the actual outcome is a matter of some probability.

So, putting it in our discussion, if one wants to commit to it that 100% that God is not, while the current state of affairs is there is some unknown probability that either God is or God is not, part of your belief is based on faith.

↪Rank Amateur

Honestly.....hell no I can’t grasp the fact of one dimension. But I don’t have any problem grasping the concept of one; the problem comes with assigning an object to it. It’s easy to say...a point in space exists necessarily because lines are a succession of points and lines in space are possible. But from conceiving a point to giving the conditions necessary for a point’s reality as an object, is impossible. Same for infinite gravity. It’s easy to think all the gravity there could ever be, but trying to do any more with the conception than that, gets you all mixed up in illusions and contradictions. — Mww

Small point, pun not intended, points only exist in 2 dimensions. The only thing we can now say exists in one dimension is time.

I for one am not going to commit to thinking science is eventually going to discover the cause of the Universe. I’m more inclined to think there are some things humans are just plain not equipped to learn. — Mww

I have no issue with that at all.

also good physicists don't let math get in the way. As you probably know for quantum mechanics to work in all instances, there must exist some x, where x squared = -1, An imaginary number. Now quantum mechanics does work in nearly all places, so we don't let that get in the way, we call it i and do the calculations.

it would have been more economic and of equal value to just say I disagree, because I disagree.

I don't disagree- But can you really have a contextual understanding of 1 dimension? I don't. Space does not exist in one dimension. Now put the entire mass of the universe into that "what ever it is". And it gets there only with infinite gravity - is there such a thing in the world as infinite gravity?

I understand where the math goes, and there may well be such a thing as a singularity, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe they could exist or existed.

But you must admit it is a wild idea to try and get your head around if you really think about it.

science is completely based on reason. That is not what my comment means. At this moment in time it is not a matter of scientific knowledge how or even if the universe as we define it began. We do not know what or even if there was a T - 0. Science as Mww pointed out just does not know. And science make no truth claims unless they know, or very very close to know. What you have faith in, is science will be able to answer this at some point. There is nothing at all wrong with that , and it is a reasonable belief. But it a belief based on faith.

Let me define faith as I use it here. It is taking a 100% commitment to a belief where the reality is a matter of probability. You have a 100% belief that science will know at some point the cause of the universe, The reality is that at this moment of time that is still a matter of some probability.

isn't the prospect of a singularly nearly as unbelievable as a necessary being? What exactly is a one dimensional "place?", that contains near infinite mass, with infinite gravity. Can you really comprehend something that could take the entire mass of the universe and with infinite gravity, force it out of existence in our time and space reality. Where all the laws of physics fail.

It is important to remember what physics is, basically just a model of reality as we observe it. That is really all it is. Turn observation into math. This allows you to plug in new variables and if the model is good it will have some predictive capabilities both going forward and backwards on the time line we observe. That is basically all physics is.

Even if both sides invoke the principle of cause and effect as the legislative governance for the existence of the Universe, at least one side escapes the post hoc fallacy by stipulating a lack of knowledge as to cause. On one hand, a diety caused the Universe and we don’t have to say anything more about it, and on the other, something probably caused the Universe and that’s all we can say about it right now. — Mww

Agree - however that is not where it is left. Where this usually ends is, "your un created creator is wrong, because science is right, and science say "we don't really know". Basically my I don't know trumps your belief, because I don't like your belief. It is just an elevation of science to religion. The believers have faith that science will have the answer. To be clear, I have no issue at all with that faith, my point is it is not all that different from most other beliefs by faith.

I will avoid the social arguments concerning abortion on this forum, because I do not consider them philosophical. But the philosophical question is, shouldn't we agree on the morality or immorality of the act, before we consider the social issues

Like you, me human beings.
— Rank Amateur
But not candidates for abortion, yes? I thought the issue was abortion, not whether murder was good or bad, or moral or immoral. — tim wood

The first few premises are establishing murder, defined as taking away a future of value for human beings like us is immoral - he wants to establish it is immoral for us before moving on to fetuses

— Rank Amateur
Who are you talking about? Me? — tim wood

Yes, you. You made the point you can't posses a future. I was asking if you value your future

I assure you it is 100% human and 100% alive. Your criteria. Are you withdrawing your criteria? — tim wood

My point was a pimple, while on a human is human, is not an organism - I told you an organism has a specific meaning- a pimple does not meet the criteria

— Rank Amateur
Here is what he wrote: "The argument is based on a major assumption.... that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that [this is] correct. — tim wood

And again he was not making any assumption about the nature of a fetus. He is saying that abortion can or can not be morally permissible depending on the nature of what a fetus is. What he is asking you to assume is the nature of what a fetus is, will bear on the morality of killing it. It does not ask you to assume any thing else. It is the first thing in his argument because, if the nature of the fetus has no bearing on morality of abortion there is no need for him to make an argument about the nature of a fetus.

I will pass on the snide remarks this time

and on some relatively big stuff. Crazy world we live in.

no we kind of actually have, pretty sure we can say quantum entanglement is real.

I guess the problem boils down to when a fetus becomes a person, then raising the question of possible murder. That is crucial information we lack to make a good judgment. — TheMadFool

Personhood is a quagmire. It is completely arbitrary, pick the criteria that you like, draw the arbitrary line and anything on one side is and anything on the other side is not. What is or is not a person has been a time honored ploy to cleave off a group of people and to do thinks to you can't do to real people

Science sees it as an issue of fetal viability ex utero at more than 23 weeks while religion believes in a soul that comes into existence at a time before that. As is obvious the two sides don't agree on when exactly a fetus becomes a person.

Religion has lost credibility these days and the vote of the people swing towards the scientific analysis of fetal viability.

However, science and religion will come to agree at some point in the future because of the rapid progress in medical technology allowing fetuses even younger than 23 weeks to survive ex utero. What about scenes from science fiction movies where babies are cloned in incubation chambers right from the zygote stage? Don't you think that religion will win the debate with the help of science, as odd as that sounds? — TheMadFool

There is no conflict at all between science and religion on abortion. Science is clear when human life begins, religion, at least my religion agrees. When a fetus is or is not viable is a matter of science, using as a criteria for abortion is not a matter of science. It is just one more arbitrary and as you note variable line we draw to justify what we want to do.

er. Pretty hard to argue the objectivity of gravity philosophically after falling out of a tree. — Mww

Relativity works, where it works and doesn't work, where it doesn't work. About a million years ago in a some physics class I was told to just to the calculations. Don't argue which machine is right, or better, or anything. Pick the right one for the job, plug in the numbers and turn the crank. As you can see that stayed with me.

if you really want to blow your mind, if quantum mechanics and supports block time, Then science is only predictable and useful when linked to a specific space time plane. This makes all arguments metaphysical. Not sure any of that is true, but it is cool

Thanks, never hear of the Big Bang before. Please. The point is, there is no philosophical difference for you pointing to a singularity and others pointing to an uncreated creator. Yours is just based on a faith in science theirs to a different faith.

This part I am not sure of, but I think general relativity breaks down before singularity into quantum mechanics. Where the physics is now, is trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I feel we are now in violent agreement on this. Just passing each other in communication. Pretty sure I agree completely with you.

From time immemorial among the most serious of possible crimes. But who are the "people like us" that are being killed? — tim wood

Like you, me human beings.

When "one" is killed? The error in #1 has leaked to #2. And you don't lose what you never had, have not now, and only may have in the future - and the entire future is a maybe. Further, what is its value and how do you assess it? And you're not in any case talking about a person in any sense. — tim wood

Do you not value your future Tim, are you looking forward to dinner tonight? Looking forward to the next good movie you will watch, time spent with folks you love. Are you indifferent if these things happen or not? Would it be moral for me to shoot you in the head, and deny these future events?
lack of certainty in what your exact future is, does not make you still desire it to happen

3. Killing someone is immoral because it denies them their FOV
This isn't an argument; it's a bald claim without support, in terms of, and about things and concepts about those things, that are themselves error-riddled. — tim wood

It is not an argument, it is a proposition, I pro port as true, Based on 1 murder is immoral, denying a FOV is murder, therefore denying FOV is immoral

5. This organism is 100% human, and 100% alive.
So is pimple on my backside. Why do you not make clear and explicit whatever it is your argument is, and what it is for? — tim wood

Your pimple is not an organism, it is a word with meaning

FOV, a gee-whiz term that is supposed to mean something, but that does not. — tim wood

I defined it,

7. It is immoral to deny a FOV
Two points here. 1) there has been no argument in support of this or any part of this. 2) the author of the essay this comes from troubled to make explicitly clear that just exactly this, he was assuming for the sake of (his) argument. — tim wood

Just flatly disagree with 1. And you still have not understood your first error about his assumption that I corrected you on earlier

The larger lesson here is that if Rank Amateur had paid "even the cold respect of a passing glance" to what he was doing, he would not have posted, and he would have been far better off for the thinking he might have done instead. That's a loss of value, and nothing future about it - implicitly he's the immoral one here. — tim wood

Thank you for the comments. All of your comments to the argument posted were flippant and near thoughless. Much more aimed at inflating your quite developed ego, them meaningfully answer what may well be my feeble attempt at summarizing a rather respected philosophical argument.

While it is an excellent rhetorical device, the line "how do you make your truth, my truth?" will not do. If something is true for you, but false for me, then either one of us has mis-stated what is going on, or one of us is wrong. There is no "my truth" and "your truth". Relativism cannot be made coherent. — Banno

Point taken, thought it sounded cool.

Here is the issue behind the question. I put forward an idea for a workable definition of truth as, a belief one has, that one tries to act in accordance with. It was quickly defeated by the example that what if I was delusional. And I agreed. The point is, is there any difference between your headache and my delusion? We both have a personal truth, that we are acting in accordance with.

If we are to share our personal truths, are all we are left with is our ability to communicate them effectively and their acceptance by the audience?

Solving 4 of Einstein’s 10 field equations for GR gives rise to the possibility of quantum singularity at t0, from which the origin of the Universe as we know is given. Maybe. — Mww

Is such a thing as a singularity a scientific fact? Does it rise to the level of scientific theory, which I assume you know has a specific meaning, think theory of gravity?

Let me try and make the argument for a valuable future- there is a link above to the whole argument

1. It is immoral, without justification, to kill people like us. ( can we avoid a rabbit hole about justified here please, it is not important to the argument)

2. What one loses, when one is killed is all the experience, joys, relationships, etc that is in ones future. Let's call this a human future of value. FOV

3. Killing someone is immoral because it denies them their FOV

4. After the process of conception is completed, a new and unique organism exists

5. This organism is 100% human, and 100% alive

6. This unique, human organism is in complete possession of a fully human and unique FOV

7. It is immoral to deny a FOV

8. It is immoral to deny these organisms their unique FOV therefore abortion is immoral

sorry

there have been pages and pages of objections, mostly just statements absent support. To barrow a phrase, me parsing them all together would be like nailing jello to a wall

And highly likely that what ever I chose to address would be the wrong one, or there was more to it, or or or

So how about in one place, you make a succinct and complete argument with support and I will be happy to address