Mathematicians say that the inside is the same as the outside

Mathematicians who specialize in the field of topology, which concerns the mathematical study of geometric spaces, say there is no fundamental difference between inside space and outside space, that the two are philosophically equivalent. At first glance this may sound sort of counterintuitive, but think about it: in a hollow sphere (which forms the boundary between two spaces) the inside surface has the same surface area as the outside surface area, and the space inside the sphere is indelibly separated from the outside space, the same way the outside of the sphere is separated from the inside space; in mathematical language the two are symmetric. The apparent fact the space on the outside is always going larger only arises from engineering limitations of how big we can build the sphere, in mathematical terms it's not a fundamental geometric feature.

So how does this apply to Abortion?
Well, pro-choicers are always telling us that the woman should have the ultimate authority because the fetus is inside the woman. But think about that for a moment. It can also be said that the woman is outside the fetus. Therefore one could posit that it is the fetus who has the ultimate rightful dominion, if we were to use the analogous logic.
There is a geometric relationship between woman and fetus, but topology tells us this relationship is symmetric; from a philosophical standpoint the woman's existence on the exterior does not grant her any greater degree of supremacy over the being who exists in the interior space; the two are equal.

The fact that the fetus is inside the woman, in terms of spatial geometry, does not in itself give the woman any greater right over that fetus.
Just applying logic to rebut one of the major informal presuppositions in the pro-choice argument. Hopefully we now have clarity on this point.

 

Well that's a nice theory. But sorry.....abortion is here to stay

 

Your comment just helps demonstrate that the pro-choice belief is not based on logic.

 

Well that's no revelation.

 

You have one theory and we should change abortion policy based on that? Are you kidding?

 

Darn tootin' it gives her a greater right. It's her body it's attached to, her body that is put at great discomfort and pain, her body that could be at risk etc. Easy to demand she be forced to gestate when you know you will never be pregnant, isn't it?

 

Ah, but on the other side of the coin it is she who is attached to the fetus.

 

You need a lot more evidence before we change anything

 

Just using logic to demolish one pro-choice argument at a time.

 

Knock yourself out. Abortion will remain legal forever

 

gee, by that logic a man could say he did not rape a women cause he was never inside her.... stupid logic

when you have to try that hard to twist something into supporting your argument,

 

You have never destroyed any Pro-Choice argument ever..(when you are stumped by those "inconvenient" questions you just run)...and the gobbeldegoop OP sure doesn't prove or change a thing....

Take it to the Supreme Court if you think it's so clever....

 

Hehe, this guy forgets the cyclical nature of man.

 

Now you can see why women are not ruled by spatial geometry. A woman is not a sphere. A woman has a brain. A being with a brain has supremacy over the being that does not.

 

Correct. It’s not the spatial geometry that is the key factor but the almost symbiotic link. If foetuses somehow formed outside a woman’s body but still connected via the umbilical cord, the same principles around abortion would apply. Alternatively, if embryos were could be transferred to tanks and foetuses grown there physically independent from the mother (and father), the question of abortion would be significantly altered.

As long as pregnant women have that unique physiological connection to the foetus, the social, moral and legal principals surrounding the situation will also be unique.

 

Your tautological fallacy is utterly meaningless since abortion rights are based upon the Constitutional Right to Privacy.

Until you can refute the legal basis for medical privacy no amount of vacuous dissembling is going to alter the Law of the Land.

 

Once again I'm amazed at how much time you devote to finding some way, any way, to control women.

The bizarre scenarios you have cooked up in the past pale in comparison to this latest "Weird Idea"..

 

I wish I could use spatial geometry arguments to say that the inside of a packaged good is the same as the outside, and when I open it and take what's in it without paying for it, that's okay. I could use spatial geometry to argue that your money isn't inside your wallet, your wallet is outside the money and since the money is it's "own" thing, it doesn't actually belong to you.

Lets have some reverse crossover too. I'd like to apply the principles of psychology to solving the acceleration to and deceleration from light speed problem for space travel. That way we can explore neighboring solar systems within my lifetime, and we'll do it by asking the photons why they feel the way they do and if they think it's okay that they are the only things that consistently move at the speed of light.

 

How about basing it on....history?

It's been FORTY-THREE YEARS since Roe...and you guys are no closer to banning abortion today than you were in 1973.

- - - Updated - - -

While he thinks of fetuses, embryoes, and zygotes as "people"?



Joakim thinks of women as objects....and not in the usual sexual reference.

 

He penetrated the barrier between the two spaces.

The fetus came into existence inside the woman, so did not violate her territorial boundaries.

 

Great. And pro choicers believe she can get an abortion if she does get pregnant.

 

This makes an assumption that the fetus and woman have both existed for the same period of time, were that to be true that the equality of rights would be the same .. however as the fetus is actually the instigator of injuries to the female then it is her autonomy that is being violated without her consent and as such she has the greater right to stop any and all injuries occurring.

Pro-lifers attempt to portray the fetus as a "victim" when in reality it is the woman who is a victim of the non-consented injuries the fetus imposes onto her.

 

nope, it is the fetus that instigated the attachment, not the female and that attachment without consent is a violation of her autonomy, consent and allows her to defend herself up to and including deadly force.

 

100% wrong, as soon as the fertilized ovum invades the uterine wall it has violated her territorial boundaries.

 

How can you say that? The fetus did not instigate anything. It had no choice in the matter and did not choose to be there. In all likelihood it was the woman who made a choice that led to the pregnancy...