Martin

THE CATEGORY ERRORS AT THE HEART OF PRO-ABORTION LOGIC Let us begin with a clarification of terms: whatness pertains to what a thing is, and whereness pertains to where a thing is, and aliveness pertains to whether a thing is alive, and iusness pertains to the legal right of a thing. In discussions of abortion, those in favour commonly present arguments in which whereness is taken to determine whatness., e.g: 1. The unborn are not human beings until they are born. 2. The unborn are not persons until they are born. 3. The unborn are not alive until they are born. These arguments are predicated on the logic that: if thing A passes from spatial location X to Y, then A becomes B. On the contrary, the motion of change is a change in whereness, but not whatness. Consider, then, a thing A situated at place X at time t0, should it move from place X to Y at time t1, it remains the same thing A. The change at time t1 belongs to the category of whereness: ∑ [t=1 to 2] ΔWhereness(t) > 0 Let us posit that whatness is not derived from where a thing is, but on the hylomorphism of a thing, e.g., if thing A has the hyle (substance) of human, and the morphe (form) of an individual of the species homo sapiens, then A is a human being regardless of it’s spatial location. If a thing is a human being for any moment of it’s existence, then it is a human being for all moments of it’s existence, even after death until decomposition causes it’s material form to cease to exist. There is no measurable change of motion in the whatness: ∑ [t=1 to 2] ΔWhatness(t) = 0 The event at which a human being comes into existence takes place as a single event: h = { 0 (non-human), 1 (human )}, Δh The event that takes place at Δh can only occur once in the things existence, and cannot take place more than once, i.e., when two haploids fuse to form a diploid organism, i.e., conception (source: Carnegie stage 1a development). You cannot add more humanness to a human to make it more human, and you cannot take away humanness from a human to make it any less human. A thing is either an individual of the species homo sapiens, or it is an individual of another species. ∀x(HumanBeing(x) v ¬HumanBeing(x)) It is fallacious to claim that becoming a human being is a gradual change: ∫(gestation -> birth) humanness(t) dt = (false) Rather, it is the case that: ∫(gestation -> birth) age(t) dt = (true) ∫(gestation -> birth) whereness(t) dt = (true) In regards to the premise of personhood, this refers to the iusness of a thing, but not the whatness of a thing. Using iusness as a premise in an argument causes the argument to collapse into relativism, as whether a human prenate is a person is relative to what country you are in. - At time t1 person A in country X posits that a human prenate is not a person. - At time t1 person B in country Y posits that a human prenate is a person. Both arguments are true and false at the same time, which violates the law of non-contradiction; thus, the truth of the argument is relative rather than certain. In regards to the claim that a human prenate is not alive until birth: this claim presupposes that life can come from non-life. On the contrary, life can only come from life. There exists three types of material pertaining to life: ⎧ 1 (inanimate) s = ⎨ 2 (alive) ⎩ 3 (dead) Substance s1 has no potential to be anything other than s1, i.e., it can never be actualised into s2 or s3. Substance s2 has the potential to (a) create more of s2, and (b) become s3. The potential to create more s2 is actualised at reproduction, and the potential to become s3 is actualised at death. Substance s3 has no potential to be anything other than s3, i.e., it can never be actualised into s1 or s2. Therefore it is the case that: - At time t0 (conception), a thing A of s2 is caused to exist at spacial location X as a consequence of two haploids of pre-existing s2 fusing. Thing A has the potential to move from spatial location X to Y. - At time t1 (gestation), the thing A of s2 continues to exist at location X. - At time t2 (birth), the thing A of s2 is moved from spatial location X to Y. The thing A is alive from the moment of it’s existence at all times t0 to t1, and from all spatial locations X to Y. The motion of change is whereness, not aliveness. Conclusion, the whereness, iusness and aliveness of a thing do not determine the whatness of a thing.

@IanRayneshkgu @PukeBuffet @ALifeAfterTech A pregnant mother will cease being pregnant after nine months, and will the mother to a living child. You simply want a pregnant woman to cease being in order that she becomes mother to a dead child.

@MartinLogicing @PukeBuffet @ALifeAfterTech No. I'm advocating the right to cease being pregnant, within reasonable constraints, if that pregnancy is unwanted or becomes problematic.

How would me mutilating my biology prevent other women and "doctors" from killing preborn children?

@AtheistPhoenix By what moral framework are you claiming that morality is not objective?

Morality is not objective Yahweh is fiction, so appealing to the morally corrupt minor god of the Levant is ridiculous

@AbortionChat A woman who has an abortion is still a parent, simply the parent to a dead child.

And forcing someone to be pregnant and then parent does the same thing to the pregnant person 🤷‍♀️

@luvmyjaide ♥️

@Introvert314 I hate young people. They are so... young!

@MartinLogicing I don't know. Maybe it's a young person thing.

Get to know your oomfs Name: Martin. Age: old enough to know what to do and how to do it well. Birthday: January. Fav artists: Rubens and @Introvert314 Country: 🇬🇧 Dream job: Tea Taster Fav color: Green (my eyes). Fav season: Winter Birth year: A set of numerical values.

Your gender was not assigned at birth, it was observed. The gender assignment took place when a sperm carrying a Y chromosome fused with an egg carrying an X chromosome, so produce a diploid organism with XY chromosomes. When you were born the Doctors merely observed the gender that was assigned to you at conception by the chromosomes.

Your gender was not assigned at birth. Your gender was assigned when the sperm carrying a Y chromosome fused with the egg carrying the X chromosome, which lead to your chromosomes being XY (male). If the sperm had an X chromosome, then your chromosomes would be XX (female). Your gender was observed at birth, not assigned.

The fact they assigned me a gender at birth should be considered assault idgaf. I never agreed to that. Same thing with puberty.

But you don't have full control over your own body. The law decides what you can and cannot do with your own body. True freedom over your own body would include the freedom to use your body to rape and murder someone. So you're not advocating for freedom over your body, you're advocating for freedom to kill a child.

There is no version of freedom that doesn’t include control over your own body.

It seems to me that you are making a moral judgement against God for choosing people or land (though, God actually chose Abraham, not people. The people simply descended from Abraham). May I prevail upon your good favour so explain what moral standard you are using to judge the morality of God?

Who can possibly believe a creator who supposedly loves all his creation would favor a chosen people or land? Who could imagine said creator would deliver his message at one end of the Mediterranean in only one age instead of universally for all time? The notion is illogical.

@Introvert314 Do you know any Americans that you can ask?

@MartinLogicing I've never heard it

@EAGsquared @Prolife_Texan__ @Men_4_Choice I'd be keen to see your actual answer to her question.

@Prolife_Texan__ @Men_4_Choice We’ve always known you prefer dead women to women you can’t control through pregnancy, it’s nice to see you repulsive ghouls admit it.

Denying abortion access doesn't stop abortions.  It just stops safe ones.

Denying rape access doesn't stop rape. It just stops safe ones.

@Introvert314 Right. This is it. Thinking is too hard for them.

@MartinLogicing They don't think at all. They just recite what they've been taught to believe.

"It's just a clump of cells." Human cells. We, the humans of the world, are all a clump of cells. Those of us no longer in utero have more human cells than those of an equally human fetus. It doesn't make you more human to have more cells. And you do not have the right to kill people (regardless of how the changeable laws of a land define that word) because you're bigger than they are.

Proaborts often use the premise of, "clump of cells", in their arguments. But we are also clumps of cells. All human beings over the age of 24 hours are clumps of cells. By referring to unborn human beings as clumps of cells, they are equivocating the ontology with born human beings, i.e., they are the same thing. The equivocation of the ontological existence entails an equivocation of the moral weight. It follows as a corollary that if the ontological existence is the same, then so is the moral value, as they are the same being. So when they say it's just a clump of cells they are supporting moral equivalency between born and unborn human beings. For which I actually approve.

@Mrsfluffybuns Brilliant!

Women already have the right to control their reproduction, e.g., if a woman wants to reproduce then she can control her decision to partake in the continuation of the species with a man. But you're advocating for a woman's right to kill the child that has already been reproduced.

@MartinLogicing @PukeBuffet @ALifeAfterTech It refers to the right to control one's own reproduction, including the right to stop or avoid reproducing.

@MartinLogicing They are called women. Have you never heard of adjectives?

"trans women are women 🏳️‍⚧️" If trans women were women, then they would not be called trans women. They would be called women. "trans men are men 🏳️‍⚧️" If trans men were men, then they would not be called trans men. They would be called men. "non binary people are valid 🏳️‍⚧️" Propositions are valid, as it refers to logical entailment in an assertion. A proposition about a person can be valid, but not the person. People cannot be valid. It's a taxonomic error. "there is no LGB without the T 🏳️‍⚧️" Well that would make it GB, so of course it would not be TGB, because it would simply be GB. I'm not sure what your point is. "trans rights are human rights 🏳️‍⚧️" Human rights apply to humans. Nobody is saying trans people a not humans, and being trans does not preclude a person from human rights. It makes no sense to equivocate trans rights with human rights, as all humans have human rights.

I'm going to make this as simple and objective as I can. I'm going to presume you are familiar with the law of identity: A = A That is, a thing is identical to itself. If you are claiming that a man is a woman (e.g., trans woman), then you are violating the law of identity, e.g: A = A That is, A is no longer identical to itself. If A is B, then it is not A. It is simply B. A is a substantial form, so it cannot become a non-A. B is a substantial form, so it cannot become a non-B. You could claim that A identifies as B e.g: Man(A) ^ IdentifiesAsWoman(A) But A is still a man, not a woman.

@MartinLogicing yeah sure, we can go around this particular carousel all day i guess. whenever you're ready to stop begging the question, let me know x.com/evilpostmaker/…

Ontology is your best friend. ⎧Adult Man =⎨Human ⎩Male ⎧Adult Woman =⎨Human ⎩Female Any questions?

@evilpostmaker The other premises merely restated your subjective reasoning. Dismissed.

@MartinLogicing this is why i got snippy with you, because you're coming into this assuming you're right, while ignoring my contentions with your argument. it's incredibly bad faith and, again, comes across as very dickish. don't be a dick.

@evilpostmaker You cannot be a woman unless you have the properties of adult, human and female. You are using the term woman incorrectly if you are describing a person who lacks those three properties.

@MartinLogicing definitions are not strictly objective, they are descriptive, not prescriptrive. the fallacy you keep making is called the appeal to definition fallacy. the conversation is just going to keep looping until you stop making it. logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallaci…