If I live in your house you have to provide me with utilities? — tim wood

Horrible

what obliges a woman to maintain that life? — tim wood

Horrible

Life does not begin in the womb. — tim wood

Do you admit you have no proof of this?

Who differs? — tim wood

Some say only their race have rights

when dies it become a body, — tim wood

Huh?

You're saying that before birth you can take the life and after you can't. Why does the birth grant rights?

Hell no they don't.

So birth gives rights. Prove it

I said a woman has rights over her body not someone else's. Also, where is you infallible argument that proves when life rights begin? I show respect for life on this. You're willing to say "maybe in some reality it's not human so I'll kill it"

It's a unique situation but a beautiful one and it's specialness doesn't grant women rights to stop the life of their unborn

I've already states the rights of the mother are over her body, not someone else's. Living inside someone doesn't mean less rights.

Can you prove from *logic* a one hour old baby has rights? Nop. It's a continuum on the logical end so you respect all life on the moral side. The mother has rights over her body but that has no relationship to the argument over abortion. The sophistry is saying the mother has a right over a body that is not her own. It's not my fault you don't get this. I've explained this on other occasions to you on this forum

The ends do not justify the means

Because it grows into a formed person. The formation has started at conception. Are you for saying that it's not a person before birth but is after? That's arbitrary. Saying it starts at conception is not arbitrary. It grants rights to whole process, not a slow growth of rights. The mother is no issue in the discussion, but only what rights should be assumes to exist in a body the body that is not the mother's. The mother has rights over her body, not someone else's

It means rights start at conception. Birth doesn't start the right to life, nor development. That's obvious

You do use sophistry. The mother has no right over something that is not her body. Child's body, it's rights.

No sophism. — James Riley

But then

Her house, her rules. — James Riley

So there is the sophism. The one and only issue is whether the pre-born should be considered human. I can't prove I have rights nor that you have rights. It's about what we are willing to respect. You are willing to kill the pre-born even if there might be human rights there. Abortion supporters don't care if there might be rights involved. They want some kind of false liberation in order to be "free". I feel free, I feel sexually liberated but I don't say we should not respect the unborn. It's ridiculous that you are willing to end a beating heart just because you can't find a logical proof that it is human. There is no logical proof for anything about rights in that way. We come from a family tree of hominids. It's about what we should respect as honorable responsible people. Pro-choice people are like people in free fall trying to grab on to anything they can to keep it going

Life must be assumed to have rights. There are no counter rights of the mother. When this is not accepted morality slips into nihilism

Abortion advocates have trouble defending their positions without resorting to sophism. The first and only principle involved is whether the pre-born are humans. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the child obviously trumps the feelings of the mother not only because it is dependent on her and her body created it but because it is human. So talk of the mother's body and her bodies rights are not appropriate in the conversation. Abortion supporters at times try to turn abortion into an act of self-
defense. Saying a woman is defending her body from an invader. But if the pre-born is human this is like saying a person who leaves her front door unlocked and a baby crawls can blow its head off with a shotgun. The right to life is universal, not limited to groups, sexes, etc.The right to life is paramount because it listed first and is needed for the other rights. It's not about how far someone is in development. If human life starts at conception it is equal to a 3 year old girl who is still developing (yet fully human).

Did you have the right to live at 8 months old but not 1 month before your birth? Is a person’s value defined by her abilities, by what she can or can’t do? No. With age you gain more freedoms but not more human rights. Now it is obvious that human LIFE starts at conception, so it must be assumed that this life is human. If you have a building that needs to be demolished and there might be a person inside, yet the building is in need of destruction, do you destroy the building although a person might be there just because it seems more practical? No. If human life might be there you must respect it.

Now abortion supporters seem to be saying, although they seldom say what they really mean, that life would not have put such a duty on women and so the child cannot be human until birth. However, from the logic of this would follow that:

1) assisted suicide should be allowed (right to one's body over duty to protect life)
2) the death penalty cannot be imposed for justice's sake (the contrary reality would be too hard to be right)
3) doctors can't force an operation to save someone's life when there are no pain killers available (pragmaticism over human dignity)
4) and death should be imposed on those who are in great pain and can't respond

Now a pro-life person might stay pro-life and have one or the other opinions on these, but the pro-choice idea, implied in much of what they say, is that without abortion life is too hard and so abortion should be allowed. And from this principles flows the listed positions above follow

I like to think of the universe as a ball (universe) eternally rolling down a hill (the vacuum) which cause friction (time) which causes curvatures in the sand (vacuum), which goes back to the beginning of the cycle and on forever. A self propelling system unrevised by anyone bit working because of the basic rules of matter

I believe the world has bad and good elements. Just like God, or the universe, or whatever, it's just the essence of reality

The universe is mathematical and what matter is as an essence is anyone's guess. Descartes, siding with skeptics on this, said that objects from far away are a type of illusion. The object is not seen but constructed. I wonder how close anyone has to be to an object in order to see it's true self. But this is a point that the world is understood as mental on one hand and material on the other. Science adds to the discussion by it's mathematics but everything is so interconnected that we can't understand any particular till we understand absolute truth

You said "Aristotle didn't believe in space or time", though Bk.4 of his "Physics" indicates that he believed in both "place" and "time". Though he rejected the prevailing conception of "void", this does not mean that he did not believe in "space", because he replaced "void" with the more comprehensive and practical "place". And, he stated that "time" has two distinct senses, primarily it is a measurement, and secondarily it is the thing measured. In modern usage this separation is not maintained and equivocation is the result. When pressed for an explanation, most people simply deny the second, 'there is no such thing as time', as something which is being measured. You can see this in Einstein's famous quote where he states that time is a persistent illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Einstein did not deny that place and time exist in the Aristotelian sense. People who believe in the universe believe in this, but it is a relational theory and in Aristotle it was the quintessence instead of spacetime that provided the means for parts to talk to each other in the language of space and time. Your attempt to find a middle ground between absolute plenum and relational theory doesnt work as I already pointed out. Aristotle believed in relationship theory but God(s) held the relations together through the 5th element

If space necessarily has parts, then we must conclude that it is discrete, as each part is a distinct and therefore discrete entity. — Metaphysician Undercover

No because each part of space has parts which have parts which have parts which have parts... to infinity.

If space were continuous, then it would have no parts, as being partitioned means that it is divided, therefore necessarily not continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have discrete and continuous mixed up. Discrete is pointsize. Continuous is infinitely divisible, which even Aristotle said was the case. Discrete space doesn't exist. The question is how to understand infinite divisibility because it leads to problems as Zeno showed

I have read the Physics. There is no middle ground between absolute time and space on one hand and relational theory. Aristotle rejected the former, calling it a void, and so falls in the other camp

And youre not being clear about continuity and discreteness. Space can't be discrete. Space necessarily has parts. You say mathematics backed up motion being continuous and yet this was exactly Zeno's point.

Man is not perfect as I said

The word God means moral perfection and innocence. Such a state seems impossible for humans and for a necessary being, although not for a lower "god". There cannot be a being of Pure Act because virtues are divided up between ones a being can have by nature and ones that require the eye of the tiger to obtain. There might be a being of infinite innocence but it couldn't have the maximum of courage if it was always in a blissful changeless state "rolling around heaven all day". Again, there is innocence and acquired goods, childhood-natural goods and goods that must be performed. So are there wizards and a pantheon? Are these who "aliens" really are? It's not bad to think so. I listen to a lot of traditional religious music and connect with the mystical ethos of it. But all this talk of the world coming from a language, whether it be of Genesis or an Om, goes back to the paternal Pure Act being of traditional religion who in reality can't represent all reality because some goods in reality must be experienced in order to partake of.

I think humans can't understand the world at all unless something remains a mystery. Once I think I understand everything suddenly nothing makes sense. It's assumed we know what material existence is so we posit other realities. But Heidegger asked, "do we really know what 'to be' means?" At such a point one forgets about other realities and does science, but Platonic ideas always creep in nonetheless

My intuition wants to say there is no real passage of time, and that this all occurs in the same space (or lack thereof, as it were) at once. — theRiddler

That's my point as well. Time is a mystical concept that is helpful in physics but there is really no stuff called time. Physics deals with stuff. Time and space, understood in an absolute sense, are a kind of Platonic heaven, designed to help people see this world as a Platonic place. That's philosophy though, not empirical thought

Gaps do not necessarily stop motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if they're infinite. Math does need a better explanation of this imo. Saying infinite steps has a finite sumation doesn't answer the paradox

Then the required mathematics was produced to support that assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which mathematics demonstrate space can be discrete? Isn't this contrary to the very definition of space? As I said a loop of some kind is a better idea

Aristotle demonstrated the need to allow for change, and motion if our conceptions are to be real representations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle didn't believe in space or time, just forms. Space is a physical container and humans use the concept of time to understand how relativity works within space. Aristotle was right actually in that space and time are both phantoms but modern physics doesn't work with these absolute ideas anymore

Deleted

I wasn't trying to piss him off. I was trying to find where his mind is

In the USA it's childish to talk about yourself in the third person, as you seem to know:

Prishon wanna sleepy sleepy (weieired...) — Prishon

There is no Newtonian spacetime. Newton kept space and time separate

You've asked about Machs principle, which you can just look up on Wikipedia. You ask *us* if there is something wrong with the Higg's mechanism when this is a philosophy forum. It's all very strange

Everywhere, on threads and your threads

So you don't work in the field and have no colleagues

So you have a degree or just studied there?

Then why are you asking people on a random website questions about physics when you can just ask your colleagues.

Something doesnt add up

Everywhere. Where did you get your degree?

The questions you ask indicate otherwise. Where did you get your degree?

I thought you claim to be a particle physicist

I agree with your post. As Kant said about the series of past causes, it's indeterminate. We can speculate if it's eternal or not but time itself is either material or mystical. Both options seem as absurd as a finite or infinite past seemed to Kant. So we have a casual series which science makes rational sense of. Where it starts is beyond us which is why religion talks about a "beginning" so much. It becomes a religious question because science can't know the whole of reality

Spacetime is space as substance. Time describes the affect of relativity