d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Abortion. A Complicated Philosophical Issue.
Prev1121314151619Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 2495Replies: 183Track Topic
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
#131
Oct 4 2014 12:27pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 4 2014 01:46pm)
It is all conjecture.  Even science is conjecture most of the time, a theory being effective (truthful) as long as it works and being discarded when it stops working.

For example Newtonian physics was true until Einstein's physics better modeled the actual situation.  This brings up a couple of possible ramifications:  there is either not a real truth just temporary knowledge, or there is a truth in which we can get right in degrees and some models can indeed be more true than others, however this suggests a teleological goal in truth, some sort of absolute truth, which smacks of Plato/Hegel/Idea of Heaven/Idealism.

Epistemology is fun but always self-defeating  :lol:


Newtonian physics is completely true for macroscopic objects, it's just not true for really small particles.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#132
Oct 4 2014 02:19pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 4 2014 11:46am)
It is all conjecture.  Even science is conjecture most of the time, a theory being effective (truthful) as long as it works and being discarded when it stops working.

For example Newtonian physics was true until Einstein's physics better modeled the actual situation.  This brings up a couple of possible ramifications:  there is either not a real truth just temporary knowledge, or there is a truth in which we can get right in degrees and some models can indeed be more true than others, however this suggests a teleological goal in truth, some sort of absolute truth, which smacks of Plato/Hegel/Idea of Heaven/Idealism.

Epistemology is fun but always self-defeating  :lol:


But we always knew from the outset that Newton's laws weren't true..... Newton himself never claimed them absolute truth and one major example was the multiple body problem in gravity which he was unable to solve. Models may get more and more accurate but they're never really true. To show it's true we would have to test it in an infinite number of situations, which isn't possible.

Really everything we say about the world is conjecture though, so it kind of loses its impact.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 4 2014 02:26pm
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
#133
Oct 4 2014 02:32pm
Quote (thundercock @ 4 Oct 2014 18:26)
Given that you guys are so unsure about this arbitrary cutoff, is it better to err on the side of life or termination?


Depends on the ramifications of either. That's why I agreed with voyaging when he said it must be considered on a case by case basis.
Member
Posts: 78,723
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 493.00
#134
Oct 4 2014 02:58pm
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 4 2014 12:46pm)
It is all conjecture.  Even science is conjecture most of the time, a theory being effective (truthful) as long as it works and being discarded when it stops working.

For example Newtonian physics was true until Einstein's physics better modeled the actual situation.  This brings up a couple of possible ramifications:  there is either not a real truth just temporary knowledge, or there is a truth in which we can get right in degrees and some models can indeed be more true than others, however this suggests a teleological goal in truth, some sort of absolute truth, which smacks of Plato/Hegel/Idea of Heaven/Idealism.

Epistemology is fun but always self-defeating  :lol:


Why do you always bring up that bit about science as if anyone thinks otherwise

Everyone knows and agrees on it, nothing to debate there
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#135
Oct 4 2014 11:49pm
Honestly, we just need to wake up and realize we don't really care that much about human life. Republicans are just idiot ideologues who will blow up abortion clinics but don't care when we bomb pregnant women overseas. Nor do they care about starving pregnant women or newborns in the third world that could be eating if it weren't for greedy capitalism that they promote. They are pro death until it comes to abortion, which is not even about saving lives, it's about controlling vaginas.
Member
Posts: 9,060
Joined: May 15 2010
Gold: 18,470.03
#136
Oct 5 2014 05:00am
Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 5 2014 12:49am)
Honestly, we just need to wake up and realize we don't really care that much about human life. Republicans are just idiot ideologues who will blow up abortion clinics but don't care when we bomb pregnant women overseas. Nor do they care about starving pregnant women or newborns in the third world that could be eating if it weren't for greedy capitalism that they promote. They are pro death until it comes to abortion, which is not even about saving lives, it's about controlling vaginas.


I agree for the most part. Liberals need to realize that they are pro science until it comes to conception.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#137
Oct 5 2014 06:53am
Quote (nineinchnailz @ 5 Oct 2014 06:00)
I agree for the most part.  Liberals need to realize that they are pro science until it comes to conception.



Liberals accept conception, pro-choice advocates just believe that the woman has the right to make the decisions when it comes to her body

The gop clings to the 'right to life' platform because the religious right has been one of their life boats in the last few elections.
Member
Posts: 9,060
Joined: May 15 2010
Gold: 18,470.03
#138
Oct 5 2014 09:29am
Quote (Valhalls_Sun @ Oct 5 2014 07:53am)
Liberals accept conception, pro-choice advocates just believe that the woman has the right to make the decisions when it comes to her body

The gop clings to the 'right to life' platform because the religious right has been one of their life boats in the last few elections.


Some may accept it, i myself am pro choice for practical reasons. The her body argument communicates a lack of understanding that there is a second body present.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#139
Oct 5 2014 10:04am
Quote (nineinchnailz @ 5 Oct 2014 10:29)
Some may accept it, i myself am pro choice for practical reasons.  The her body argument communicates a lack of understanding that there is a second body present.



I fully understand that there is another body present, sigh..one that is wholly dependent on the mother. It is my belief that the mother has to be the one who ultimately makes the judgement call, anything else would be an invasion of her freedom. correct?

you imply that you're pro-choice for better reasons because they are 'practical' but you don't give any.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#140
Oct 5 2014 10:07am
Quote (thundercock @ Oct 4 2014 01:26pm)
Given that you guys are so unsure about this arbitrary cutoff, is it better to err on the side of life or termination?


I am fine with Roe v. Wade, and I'm pretty sure of the line that is drawn, in which anything before the first trimester is a private affair. And it is a private affair. This argument isn't about saving babies it is discourse about power distribution in society dressed up with a moralistic argument. There is also the moralistic argument that the state doesn't own one's body, even if you have a vagina.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1121314151619Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact