Is Contraception Murder? - Page 4 - 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.
#14864979
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, at most, even if such were admitted, they would admit of exceptions to the rule and would force the premises to be impractically qualified via modification.


Well, let me know when you have modified your premises so that they are actually consistent with reality.

That was the title and it was written as a rhetorical question in a provactive manner, the substance of which is based on the connection between the syllogism and ethical implication sections of the OP....you're really starting to grasp at straws now bud....

Are you ready to throw in the towel yet, or do you want to keep on going?


We could go on forever and I doubt anyone excpet the Poe would agree with you, and he would only do it because it is consistent with his persona.
#14866697
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, let me know when you have modified your premises so that they are actually consistent with reality.


Yeah, I make it a habit not to stoop to your level. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Logic is logic, deal with it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We could go on forever and I doubt anyone except the Poe would agree with you, and he would only do it because it is consistent with his persona.


Who is Poe?
#14866708
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yeah, I make it a habit not to stoop to your level. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Logic is logic, deal with it.


Lol. You are actually bragging about how you cannot put together an argument about birth control and family planning that does not take into account how things often do not go according to plan.

Who is Poe?


It is assumed by many of this board that Hindsite is a Poe.
#14866738
Pants-of-dog wrote:Lol. You are actually bragging about how you cannot put together an argument about birth control and family planning that does not take into account how things often do not go according to plan.


I am bragging about using correct logic, yes. If we were to admit of possible exceptions, it would not defeat the general point that contraception by definition is designed to willfully prevent pregnancy, which is really all I am saying, and such meet the definition of destroying I presented. Plain and Simple.

Your attempts to evade from the fact that you have failed to live up to your own standard of being logical is just sad at this point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is assumed by many of this board that Hindsite is a Poe.


Perhaps I am not up-to-speed on forum-speak....what is a Poe?
#14866747
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am bragging about using correct logic, yes. If we were to admit of possible exceptions, it would not defeat the general point that contraception by definition is designed to willfully prevent pregnancy, which is really all I am saying, and such meet the definition of destroying I presented. Plain and Simple.

Your attempts to evade from the fact that you have failed to live up to your own standard of being logical is just sad at this point.


If you wish to show how my arguments are illogical, go for it. I notice you abandoned your argument about it actually killing real people.

Perhaps I am not up-to-speed on forum-speak....what is a Poe?


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe

    Poe
    A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
    "The Bible is true because it's the inerrant word of God! I know because the Bible says so! Glory!"

    Is this guy serious? He's got to be a poe.
#14866750
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to show how my arguments are illogical, go for it. I notice you abandoned your argument about it actually killing real people.


They failed to refute my OP, and you basically conceded such by demanding I not follow proper syllogistic form in order to allow your piss poor objections.

Also, where did I abandon such?

Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe

Poe
A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
"The Bible is true because it's the inerrant word of God! I know because the Bible says so! Glory!"

Is this guy serious? He's got to be a poe.


Wow, that is really weird....that seems like a serious waste of time and energy for something that is not that funny.
#14866758
Victoribus Spolia wrote:They failed to refute my OP, and you basically conceded such by demanding I not follow proper syllogistic form in order to allow your piss poor objections.

Also, where did I abandon such?


I guess pointing out how your statements are inconsistent with observed reality is piss poor objections. Cool.

You said your argument was simply saying that contraception prevents pregnancy, which is not the same as saying it kills actual people.

Wow, that is really weird....that seems like a serious waste of time and energy for something that is not that funny.


I also do not understand why someone would play the persona of being a racist religious crank, as the actual life of these people seems to be one that I would not wish to live.
#14866768
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Logic is logic, deal with it.

Logically, gametes 'themselves' do not possess potential because they cease to exist upon fusion and a new ontologically distinct being, the zygote, begins to exist.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 29 Nov 2017 20:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14866772
Pants-of-dog wrote:You said your argument was simply saying that contraception prevents pregnancy, which is not the same as saying it kills actual people.


Like the syllogism states: willful pregnancy prevention is potential person destroying which is actual person destroying. How many times do we have to go over this? It is stated, plainly, in the OP. Nothing has changed, my argument has not changed, your lack of rational response is the only thing that has remained constant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I also do not understand why someone would play the persona of being a racist religious crank, as the actual life of these people seems to be one that I would not wish to live.


Ouch. Is that a shot at me? lol. There is no persona involved my friend, I believe exactly what I claim to believe.
#14866773
Pants-of-dog wrote:You said your argument was simply saying that contraception prevents pregnancy, which is not the same as saying it kills actual people.


Like the syllogism states: willful pregnancy prevention is potential person destroying which is actual person destroying. How many times do we have to go over this? It is stated, plainly, in the OP. Nothing has changed, my argument has not changed, your lack of rational response is the only thing that has remained constant.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I also do not understand why someone would play the persona of being a racist religious crank, as the actual life of these people seems to be one that I would not wish to live.


Ouch. Is that a shot at me? lol. There is no persona involved my friend, I believe exactly what I claim to believe.

@ingliz,

Assuming your not just trolling and that I understand your point my answer is: No, because they cease to be potential-zygotes when they become actual zygotes. That is not the same as never possessing potentiality at all.
#14866775
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Assuming... that I understand your point

My point:

When all we have are gametes, there is no subject yet in existence that would benefit from being allowed to grow up, and, therefore, there is no such victim yet that is being deprived of that opportunity.
Last edited by ingliz on 29 Nov 2017 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14866776
ingliz wrote:When all we have are gametes, there is no subject yet in existence that would benefit from being allowed to grow up, and, therefore, there is no such victim yet that is being deprived of that opportunity.


Please explain how you feel that is relevant to my argument, I don't think i'm following quite yet. I might just be in a fog....please clarify if you would, Good sir.
#14866778
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Like the syllogism states: willful pregnancy prevention is potential person destroying which is actual person destroying. How many times do we have to go over this? It is stated, plainly, in the OP. Nothing has changed, my argument has not changed, your lack of rational response is the only thing that has remained constant.


If you want to believe that, go ahead.

But since actual people are not potential people, you are wrong.

Ouch. Is that a shot at me? lol. There is no persona involved my friend, I believe exactly what I claim to believe.


Sure.

My point was that the only person who will agree with you on this board is probably a troll, or so fundamentalist as to be incapable of critical analysis of his positions.
#14866781
Victoribus Spolia wrote:in a fog

You understand my point well enough.

Both the sperm and the egg can produce something which has the potential of becoming an adult human being, but neither the sperm nor the egg has that potential itself. It follows that as neither the sperm nor the egg is human, neither the sperm nor the egg can be a victim. Therefore, as the killing of the sperm or the egg harms no one, it cannot be murder.

Feigning ignorance is silly.

p.s. Is abstinence, prima facie, morally wrong? It too is "potential person destroying".


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 30 Nov 2017 06:05, edited 2 times in total.
#14866836
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Perhaps I am not up-to-speed on forum-speak....what is a Poe?

Most of the people on this forum are far-left liberals. Pants-of-dog is one of the worse. So I wouldn't pay much attention to him. Godstud, in spite of the name, is an atheist and a far left liberal. They don't even believe that abortion is murder. So I believe it would be best to start with abortion and why it is murder of a baby in the mother's womb.
#14866865
@Hindsite You're a far right-wing racist who believes in fairy tales, cheers on sexual molesters, hates poor people, and ignores science because you are incapable of understanding it. :moron:

If you don't like me commenting on you, then don't comment on me. You don't know my stance on abortion anyways, since I never made it, so fuck off.
#14866936
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to believe that, go ahead.

But since actual people are not potential people, you are wrong.


I'll believe it because its true, and potential people are not temporally the same, but are logically the same. If you destroy potential persons you destroy actual persons.

ingliz wrote:You understand my point well enough.


No, I didn't, because you speak in an oft-convoluted manner, as if English was not your first language, so I legitimately did not know what your point was. But since I want to debate this OP with someone who is going to give it serious analysis, and you seem like you want to provoke such, i'm game to put up with your rhetorical inadequacies.

ingliz wrote:Feigning ignorance is silly.


You would have to know what ignorance feels like to feign it.

ingliz wrote:Both the sperm and the egg can produce something which has the potential of becoming an adult human being, but neither the sperm nor the egg has that potential itself. It follows that as neither the sperm nor the egg is human, neither the sperm nor the egg can be a victim. Therefore, as the killing of the sperm or the egg harms no one, it cannot be murder.


Ah yes, an actual argument written in an intelligent manner. Here is my response.

Sperm, is not, at all times a potential person in my argument. Thus, there are times, when sperm is not a potential person and therefore "wasting it" is not the same as actual person destroying. This would mean, that regarding semen, my position is that sperm, in-and-of-itself, only ever, is vitae potentialis, and not ever vitae actualis. Ontologically speaking.

I clarified this in my OP:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Now, before concluding this article, it must be made clear what is not meant by contraception and what is:

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it. {Added Clarification: The Existence of A Fertilizible Egg is Subsumed Under Such Circumstances}

Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).

Similarly, contraception is a wasting of semen within the bounds of marriage wherein a heterosexual couple could produce offspring but instead deviates from that practice. Contraception, homosexuality, and bestiality must, therefore, all be regarded as anti-procreative on these aforementioned grounds.

Now, within the context of heterosexual marriage, if a couple is unable (by the observable laws of nature) to produce offspring (I.e. during pregnancy, menstruation, or post-menopause) then non-procreative sex acts between them would not be ipso facto immoral because such acts would not be anti-procreative or an act of pregnancy prevention (no circumstance of actualization exists and therefore the semen may be used but is not "wasted").

Hence, getting your dick sucked when your wife is on the rag, is pregnant, is breastfeeding (for most women) or is post-menopausal, would not be an anti-procreative sex act under the above definitions, no matter whether she spits or swallows


Likewise, regarding the difference between egg and sperm in my argument and my focus on the male component.

1. The woman produces (typically) one egg per month; wherein, the actualization of life is dependent not on any action on her part (as the production of an egg is involuntary) but upon the active fertilization of that egg via copulation when conception was, generally speaking and all-things-being-equal, possible. Thus, a woman is complicit in potential person destroying (and therefore active-person destroying) only when she actively seeks to prevent pregnancy by, (in the context of marriage), refusing her husband when she is fertile, or prevents natural ovulation which would, otherwise, result in pregnancy.

2. Thus: Inasmuch as a woman is passive, her component of the egg does not even rise, nor logically would it need to rise, to the status of vitae potentialis as sperm does, for it is not the limiting factor in the same manner. Her role and her component is passive in relation to the active role that sperm plays in fertilization. This is why the distinction exists.

ingliz wrote:p.s. Is abstinence, prima facie, morally wrong? It too is "potential person destroying".


It depends on the context. Is both conception and the production of a viable offspring both biologically and socially possible? If so, then abstinence is prima-facie actual person destroying if it involves the willful prevention of pregnancy via the wasting of semen that could otherwise be used to bring about such ends as are being discussed at present.
#14866939
After reading the OP, ask yourself the following questions:

Is Masturbation murder?
Is having a period murder?
Is not having sex murder?
Is being homosexual murder?
Is working for a career murder?

There is a number of reasons why people don't have children. Contraception is just one of them. No, its is not murder to prevent having children. It is a life choice. The destruction of life after birth is murder. If, like yourself, you can afford a large family, by all means do so. But don't dictate your opinions on those who want more from life than to be a baby factory.
#14866945
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I'll believe it because its true, and potential people are not temporally the same, but are logically the same. If you destroy potential persons you destroy actual persons.


No. You cannot just ignore the fact that caterpillars are not butterflies.

If you destroy potential people (and note that you define these as ideas or concepts and not actual objects), you are not destroying actual people (no actual physical being is harmed in any way). At most, you are preventing the continuation of the process by which potential people become actual people.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 24
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]