Does the axiom of choice undermine the "pro life" position?

Question

LeAnne and Krazykyng: I don't see how this follows from

"Every set of nonempty sets has a choice function".

Where a choice function is a function f on a collection of sets X such that for every set s in X, f(s) is an element of s.

You guys do know what the axiom of choice is, right? (See above)

And please lighten up.

Answer 1

Like the parallel postulate, it seemed very strange to mathematicians that it has to be postulated that for any infinite group of sets, it's always possible to create a set of elements drawn one apiece from each of those other sets. Since that has to be posited, it's not self evident or proven elsewhere that it's always possible to do such a thing. However, the pro life position holds that a pregnant women doesn't even have a choice in the case of a group with just one set, namely her body, and that itself has to be posited as well, so therefore the Axiom of Choice neither supports nor undermines the pro life position. It cannot be ruled out that consistent alternative protocols are possible in the case of such a choice. It always gives me cheer to see the power of mathematical reasoning having such unreasonable effectiveness in matters of morality.

Answer 2

Not if you put choice of whether or not to keep one's baby in the same context as any and every other choice afforded by our government in the name of liberty. Complete freedom is never granted on anything. There are always restrictions on how far you can go in your "pursuit of happiness". Few would argue that our free choice should not be able to infringe on the rights and/or well-being of others. So the whole issue should not be a matter of freedom of choice but whether or not an unborn child should be considered an "other"; a person with rights. If an unborn child does not have the right to life, than, yes, there is a conflict between the axiom of choice and the pro-life position. If an unborn child is a person that has a right to life, then killing that child is, in effect, murder and no one should have the freedom to choose that; even if it makes their life more convenient. So why don't we simplify the argument and stop talking about the freedom to choose, but instead just focus on the what the status should be for an unborn child and what constitutes an inherent right to live.

Answer 3

No.
Along with choices come responsibility. The choices you are free to make must be weighed against the effects they may have on other people. Whether or not a fetus is a "people" is another subject altogether.
The basis for the argument concerning pro-life seem to center on the premise of when "life" actually begins.

Answer 4

The axiom of choice is about the mathematics of infinite sets, not about politics.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. The girl (and her mate) made their choice when they decided to take a chance. Once conception occurs, they are stuck with the results.

It's like, if someone decides to blow his head off, and pulls the trigger, the decision is made, and will stand forever.

Suppose you make a contract with me to sell me your car for $10. Once I pay the money, the car is mine. You can't change your mind AFTER the decision is made.

IOW, she has a right to choose to KEEP HER DRAWERS ON !!

Answer 6

Stand in front of a herd of migrating wildebeest and ask them...

For best effect, do this while they are fighting to cross a crocodile infested river...

Answer 7

This belongs in either politics or ethics. It has nothing to do with math. There is no possible way to use math to support either the pro abortion or the anti abortion position.

Answer 8

This used to be the mathematics section. Has it gone missing?

Answering off-topic questions can be a refreshing break, but, 'they' may return & bring friends.