Pants-of-dog wrote:You define a potential person as the metaphysical concept of a person implied every time a couple enegage in coitus.
Regardless of intent, not all these people will be born, even if every single couple was trying their hardest to do so.
Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person.
When fertility is possible, all things being equal, a potential person arises under such conditions that, given the natural course of events, all things being equal, it will transition into an actual person via conception. This is true.
That is, if you fuck your wife and no one is using birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, conception will occur. If you willfully use birth control, controlling for extraneous conditions, a child will not be conceived. This is all true and common sense.
Why will no child be conceived?
Because you intentionally prevented the potential person from transitioning to an actual person and this was your intent. You
intentionally and preemptively destroyed the existence of an actual life by the means of destroying the potential person via contraception. This potential person would have, given the natural course of events (all things being equal), transitioned into an actual life had you not intervened in the process.
You are acting as the Terminator in relation to John Connor. All my syllogism is arguing is about the above:
Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]
Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.
Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]
Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]Lets look at premise two, which seems to be the object of your critique. Is this premise valid?
Is it true that if no person exists potentially, then no corresponding person can exist in actuality? Yes, this is true, for if there was never any potential person there could have been no actual person, as that would mean no conditions ever existed for that potential to transition into an actual.
Thus, premise one states, that the intention to destroy a potential person for the purpose of preventing an actual person is, all things being equal, exactly what it claims to be: a destroyer of potential persons in order to destroy actual persons. Hence the Corollary.
So, for you to say: "Thus, there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person." is to make an invalid objection. Why do I say that? Well, because even though there are potential persons who arise that do not actualize because of extraneous circumstances (which was never denied), YOU are using contraception in order to destroy those
who you believe would become actuals, if you did not think so, you would not use contraception in the first place. You have claimed that those potentials you are destroying are those that would not become actuals anyway, but if that were the case, why use contraception at all? If they are not going to become actuals anyway than whether you practice unprotected sex or not is irrelevant.
That is, when you fuck your wife when she is able to conceive, and you use a condom,
you are intentionally destroying a potential life in order preemptively destroy an actual life,
that you believe, would come into existence given the natural course of events. If YOU did not believe that a potential person existed that would otherwise transition into an actual person,
then the use of contraception would be pointless, because there was no potential for a child to be conceived to begin with (duh).
Likewise, If you would claim that
you did not want to preemptively destroy an actual life that would otherwise exist if you pursued "unprotected sex," then you would likewise not use contraception and would just be open to getting a child. So Which Is It? Are you destroying potentials that you do not think would otherwise become actuals like when you said "there will always be a number of potential people who will never be actual people. Destroying one of these dudes is not destroying an actual person"
Because if that is the case you having nothing to fear by not using contraception.
or are you destroying potentials that you believe would otherwise become actuals? [There are no alternatives logically speaking (according to the law of the excluded middle, either A or Non-A)].
If the former, than birth control is unnecessary and you may rid yourself of the inconvenience, or, if the latter, you are destroying actual people via a destruction of potential people.
But lets be honest here:
The fact of the matter is, you use birth control so that people
who you believe would otherwise come into existence given your sexual conduct, will not exist. This is accomplished by disrupting the process of a potential person becoming an actual person in fertile sexuality (coitus), by making that sexuality sterile for your own purposes.
It is really that simple, and when logically expressed, this fact is rationally undeniable.
If destroying, as I defined, is a form of murder (ethically speaking), then given the relation of potentials and actuals, and most importantly, the motive of those using contraception, such acts are murderous for they are intentionally anti-life in their approach and purpose.
Their ends is to prevent people from coming into existence that otherwise would exist, given a natural course of events and all things being equal. But even if such would be justifiable according to your code of morality, it still would not change the substance of the point that willful pregnancy prevention is an actual-life destroying act (logically), it would just mean your school of morality permits you to do it just like euthanasia or third-term abortions, or sacrificing three cops for one hundred civilian hostages etc. Those are still instances of killing, but some schools justify them as moral killings. contraception will be no different (logically speaking).