Is Contraception Murder? - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14877774
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You rebutted my previous argument on the grounds that consent on the part of the one possessing the slave (as a type of property) is immaterial. My question is meant to demonstrate that your rebuttal is simplistic in that the attribution of a crime (which is your whole point) would not obtain because consent in the possession of property is not entirely immaterial, for property is held in trust until a person can consent to its use or allocation for a reason.

Thus, if a fetus is guilty of being a slave owner on the basis of merely being conceived, then the fetus would only be liable to a crime when consenting to the possession of that property (the mother) at a later age. Therefore, when a child was, lets say, 16 or something, he would be asked if he "consents to having been conceived by his mother who got pregnant by accident"....at which point he would be arrested if he did not admit that "had he any say in the matter he would have abstained from existing in the first place." :lol:


Oh, i see. You are confused because you incorrectly believe that i think the fetus is guilty of a crime.

I don't understand what you are saying here. If a child inherits slaves, he is not legally culpable for the crime of slavery until he can consent of the inheritance which is legally held in trust until the he/she reaches such an age.

If you are three years old, and your drug king-pin dad wills you narcotics, you are not going to be thrown in prison at age 3 and if upon reaching the age to consent to that inheritance's allocation, you decide to turn it in to the federal authorities, you would likely be guilty of no crime.


Again, you are basing this all on your misunderstanding. I am not claiming that the fetus committed a crime. That was something you came up with.

But it is legal.


Sometimes, and in some places. It is illegal in other times and places. Anyway, the fact remains that when abortion is not legal, the woman’s will is suborned to the coercive power of the government.

Saying that the elimination of all existing caterpillars will result in the elimination of all future butterflies because caterpillars are potential-butterflies is perfectly rational. People just don't feel comfortable applying that same unassailable logic to their sex lives and discussing its moral implications......because of their "feelings." This is not absurd at all.

However,

Saying that a fetus is somehow criminally liable for its own unintended conception because such is an enslavement of a woman, even when the pregnancy occurred after a bout of consensual sex by the parents, is indeed absurd.


Since people are not saying we should get rid of all human sperm and eggs everywhere, this comparison of yours is absurd.

And again, you are incorrect when you think I am saying the fetus committed a crime, or is criminally liable.

You say this, but the fetus still does not consent to that which it benefits from and is still the one that incurs penalty for the alleged crime, even though it is not the slave-master or the one culpable. Which also seems odd, if not absurd.


You keep referring to an alleged crime. What are you talking about?

Essentially, you are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery to the criminal of the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) is to be punished for a crime it neither committed and the benefits of which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to you, is nullified by the fact that it is only slavery if the state outlaws abortion (which it doesn't). Is that about right?

What the fuck are you trying to argue? Do you even know?


Wow. You really took this whole “crime” thing to some absurd extreme. This has apparently confused you about what I am arguing.

Essentially, I are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery by the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) benefits from that which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to me, is consistent with the fact that it is only slavery if there is no consent, and consent is taken away when the state outlaws abortion (which it does often). Is that clear?
#14877835
Pants-of-dog wrote:Essentially, I are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery by the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) benefits from that which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to me, is consistent with the fact that it is only slavery if there is no consent, and consent is taken away when the state outlaws abortion (which it does often). Is that clear?


Sure, so who is the guilty party here then....the one that is culpable of the crime of slavery?
#14878025
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Sure, so who is the guilty party here then....the one that is culpable of the crime of slavery?


That would depend on the legal paradigm.

In a Christian theocratic government or a liberal country that allowed slavery, no one would be since slavery would be perfectly legal.

In a liberal country that did not allow slavery, such as the modern US, it may not be seen as a crime or seen as slavery because of cognitive dissonance, and therefore it would still not be a crime. Having said that, it would be the government who would be “guilty” because they are the ones coercing the woman.

Ideally, liberal countries would be aware of this dissonance and allow abortion at any time during the pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is rare and I can only think of one country that has figured this out.
#14878094
Suntzu wrote:If she swallows . . .
. . . is it cannibalism? :eh:


Its only murder if such occurs when conception were ordinarily possible, all other times is permissible, per the OP.
#14878282
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ideally, liberal countries would be aware of this dissonance and allow abortion at any time during the pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is rare and I can only think of one country that has figured this out.

The deliberate termination of the life of a baby still in the mother's womb is actually "murder" no matter what name the dishonest murderers decide to give it.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its only murder if such occurs when conception were ordinarily possible, all other times is permissible, per the OP.

Do you now see that masturbation is not murder? For example, masturbation provides a means for medical examination of the male sperm or to collect sperm for later artificial insemination.
#14878305
Hindsite wrote:The deliberate termination of the life of a baby still in the mother's womb is actually "murder" no matter what name the dishonest murderers decide to give it.


Do you now see that masturbation is not murder? For example, masturbation provides a means for medical examination of the male sperm or to collect sperm for later artificial insemination.



Murder she says!

Seems that God is the biggest murderer terminating about a third of pregnancies before birth.
#14878367
Hindsite wrote:Do you now see that masturbation is not murder? For example, masturbation provides a means for medical examination of the male sperm or to collect sperm for later artificial insemination.


I don't see how that follows, like I said, masturbation would be murder only if it was done when copulation with one's wife were ordinarily possible. The use for artificial insemination would not be a destruction of potential persons as such was used for procreation (though the act in this case would most often be lust), so I agree with you on that one, also, masturbation is not murder if your wife is not readily able to conceive, but it would still be the sin of lust (but not murder).

My OP is very clear on when non-procreative sexuality is murder and when it is not, if you share the Christian ethic of course.

Suntzu wrote:Murder she says!

Seems that God is the biggest murderer terminating about a third of pregnancies before birth.


"Murder" under Divine Command theory, references only intra-personal relations of human beings and created agency, not Divine acts of providence or justice.

Likewise, because of the curse of sin, death is the due all humans must pay on earth as an inherited consequence of the fall.

Thus, when God causes a "miscarriage" by His divine decree, it is not murder, it is both His natural order of providential governing (the way of nature), and a just consequence for sin that of Adam's progeny must all bear.

The only time God could have been liable (as a potentiality) for murder, was in the incarnation, for Christ was born under the law and His active righteousness (which was necessary for the His sacrifice in the cross to be valid) required perfect obedience to the Law, including committing no actual murders (once again demonstrating that murder is defined by God as being intra-personal among His creation).

hope that clarifies. If you are going to attack Christian theology, you sound better if you are properly informed.
#14878488
Suntzu wrote:Seems that God is the biggest murderer terminating about a third of pregnancies before birth.

Why do you accuse God of murder, when it could be Satan or many other causes for premature termination of pregnancies? Medical doctors know more about this than you and they never blame God for premature terminations, because they always have scientific reasons for it happening. The only time that I know of them blaming God is for a healing that they have no scientific reason for happening. Then it is called a miracle. Praise the Lord.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't see how that follows, like I said, masturbation would be murder only if it was done when copulation with one's wife were ordinarily possible.

No, it would not be murder then either. Obviously, you do not know much about medical science. But your ignorance of medical science is no excuse, since the Holy Bible does not even state that masturbation is murder. There are many sins and not all of them can be considered murder, not even all killings. You lying about this is a sin also. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God as the scripture clearly states. So don't act so high and mighty and claim you know it all, because you clearly do not.
#14878883
Hindsite wrote:No, it would not be murder then either.


According to the logic of Genesis 38 it would be.

Hindsite wrote:Obviously, you do not know much about medical science. But your ignorance of medical science is no excuse,


I don't know what you are talking about, and either way, medical science is subject to change, the Word of the Lord is absolute truth that endures forever.

Hindsite wrote:There are many sins and not all of them can be considered murder, not even all killings.


Never said otherwise.

Hindsite wrote:We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God as the scripture clearly states. So don't act so high and mighty and claim you know it all, because you clearly do not.


This is true, I am a sinner and so are you, but this does not negate the teaching of Scripture and that the proper teaching on contraception as implied from the Word of God is not being properly followed in Christ's church.

Hindsite wrote:since the Holy Bible does not even state that masturbation is murder.


The Holy Bible teaches that any anti-procreative sexual act when pregnancy were ordinarily possible is the equivalent of the crime of murder. Masturbation being sometimes murder is inferrable from the biblical teaching. Scripture has explicit teachings and implicit teachings. The Trinity is implicit not explicit (we don't see the Nicene formulation in scripture in exact terms), and the Bible teaches a lot things that are not explicitly stated: there is no explicit example of a woman taking communion for instance, that is inferred, but that doesn't mean its not biblical.

Hindsite wrote:Why do you accuse God of murder, when it could be Satan or many other causes for premature termination of pregnancies? Medical doctors know more about this than you and they never blame God for premature terminations, because they always have scientific reasons for it happening. The only time that I know of them blaming God is for a healing that they have no scientific reason for happening. Then it is called a miracle. Praise the Lord.


This is terrible theology. BTW.
#14878902
@Victoribus Spolia

I guess I was wrong. Not even the Poe agrees with you.

On the other hand, if we take my “absurd” proposition and modify it slightly so that we discuss “non-consensual use of the woman’s body” instead of “slavery”, we see that there has been some acceptance of this idea by at least one government.
#14878910
Pants-of-dog wrote:it would be the government who would be “guilty” because they are the ones coercing the woman.


If this is the case, than why is the fetus, which is a non-consenting party that is guilty of no-crime, receiving the penalty for the government's crime?
#14878914
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If this is the case, than why is the fetus, which is a non-consenting party that is guilty of no-crime, receiving the penalty for the government's crime?


If you think that I am claiming that the fetus is being punished for using the woman’s body without consent, you are wrong.

Again, this whole crime and punishment is something you projected onto my argument. This is like the fourth time I mention this.

The fetus is being taken out of the woman’s body because she does not consent to have another person in her body. It is not punishment for a crime.
#14879100
Victoribus Spolia wrote:According to the logic of Genesis 38 it would be.

You have weird logic.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't know what you are talking about, and either way, medical science is subject to change, the Word of the Lord is absolute truth that endures forever.

That is because you are ignorant to the truth. You don't understand the Word of the Lord.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The Holy Bible teaches that any anti-procreative sexual act when pregnancy were ordinarily possible is the equivalent of the crime of murder. Masturbation being sometimes murder is inferrable from the biblical teaching.

Not true. By the way there are many verses that imply the Trinity. I don't know of any that actually implies masturbation is murder.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fetus is being taken out of the woman’s body because she does not consent to have another person in her body. It is not punishment for a crime.

That would be fine as long as it is not killed in the process. But generally the baby in the womb is intentionally murdered and that process is called an abortion, because the baby is made dead, dead, dead.
#14879113
@Victoribus Spolia

Do these murdered 'people' get to go to heaven?

If not, why not.

Potential people are actual people, according to you, and they are as much without sin as a person can be.

Also, if they do get to go to heaven, aren't we doing these people a favour, i.e. They will have to endure none of the trials and tribulations of a life to gain life, everlasting.
#14879145
So a single cell (zygote) is a person. What happens when the zygote splits and becomes identical twins? Is each twin half a person or is one twin a person and the other a non-person? 8)
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
Is D.Trump Insane?

I knew it was satire. :D It's hard to tell truth […]

Trump has been very successful at running companie[…]

A good first step would be for Tunisia and a whol[…]

Introduction: BeheadTheFrog

You have to resort to wood-cutting tools to defen[…]