[Victoribus Spolia]

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

I never did ignore it. They are temporally different. Likewise, a load shot-off in your wife when she would be normally able to conceive, is not the same as PoD jr. born 10 months later. They are different because of the temporal conditions, but they are logically, essentially speaking, the same. Because, like I said, if you destroy the caterpillar, you destroy the butterfly it would otherwise become. Thus, is you use spermicide to destroy that load you shot-off in your wife, you destroy PoD jr. that would have otherwise been born 10 months later. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. This is a logical fact, it is an immutable relationship.

If you prevent you wife from getting pregnant, when she would otherwise become so, you are destroying the little PoDs that would have otherwise existed. This is both your intention in using contraception, by definition, and the result (as it is designed to achieve). This is not rocket science.

After reading the OP, ask yourself the following questions:

If you read it, you would not have posted pretty much anything else you wrote, most of which was addressed, and would take on the syllogism itself, which is pretty simple logic.

Is Masturbation murder?

Per the OP: Sometimes yes, sometime No. (but since you claimed to have read the argument, you should already know that)

Is having a period murder?

No, this is also given my OP (but you should know that from the OP since you claimed to have read it)

Is not having sex murder?

sometimes yes, sometimes no, depends on the context, also per my OP (which you would already know if you read the OP).

Is being homosexual murder?

practicing homosexuality is actual person destroying via potential person destroying given the OP, and is the same as murder only if you define the willful destruction of life for reasons other than war, capital punishment, and self-defense, as murder. (you should also know this from the OP, if you actually read it).

Is working for a career murder?

Uh.....No...Why would it be? That was nowhere in my OP (I am actually wondering whether you read it or not....)

here 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.

My syllogism refutes this claim, the conclusion, which follows from my premises, demonstrates this to be false. You didn't read my argument did you?

You are free to hold this opinion, but I have presented a logical argument that shows that it is false.

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.

I am presenting a valid conclusion flowing from valid premises. Thus, the truth.

You are free to destroy persons who would otherwise exist by your willful choice, but it does not become less so because you want it to be less so for your own convenience and for the easing of your own conscience. That not a problem with the argument, that really is YOUR problem. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

[B0ycey]

@Victoribus Spolia, the questions I gave were rhetorical to make a point. What you are doing is redefining the term murder. Perhaps some of the questions were answered by you. So what? The point remains the same. There are many reasons why people don't have children. Contraception is one of them. But if you class murder as the destruction of potential life, then you, me, the whole of PoFo and the entire world are murderers. Do you think 'blowing your load' in your wife's mouth when she is on the rag is acceptable but contraception isn't? After all, why do you have to procreate with your wife only? Biology and nature doesn't adhere to human ethics. Then there is the many, many sperm cells that would never reach an egg after ejaculation. Each is a potential life being lost. Smoking and drinking effects sperm count. Didn't you say you smoke cigars and drink bourbon? More murder. But women aren't exempt either. Every period is murder. What you class as murder can also adhere to anyone. Sigmatising contraception prevents you from seeing that there are a number of reason why people don't have children. None of which is murder.

As for Sarah Connor and the Terminator. If a Terminator cannot get close enough to kill Sarah Connor, how do you expect it to give her birth control? I suspect killing someone with an automatic weapon is far easier than giving someone unsuspected birth control.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Don't get all triggered on me bro,

What you are doing is redefining the term murder.

No, I allowed under section IV of the OP that there are several definitions of murder based on which ethical school you subscribe to. I never argued for any one ethical definition of murder in the OP, only that, depending on your ethical school, my argument could imply that murder was committed. Please read the following from the OP:

Some people may wonder what this argument implies ethically (as my above argument is not an ethical argument per se, at least not in-and-of itself), and that would depend on which ethical school one subscribes to. At the very least, most deontological schools would be forced to admit that if potential-person-destroying is inseparably connected to actual-person-destroying by force of logic, then by necessary inference contraception would have to be regarded as unequivocally immoral so long as it by definition was anti-procreative (ipso facto). Both the deontological schools of Divine Command (e.g. orthodox Christianity), and the categorical imperative (Kantian altruism) therefore seem obligated to the thesis that contraception should be condemned as a deviant practice.

Now when it comes to consequentialist or teleological schools (utilitarianism, egoism, etc.) it seems that at the very least they would be forced to admit what they are actually permitting (actual person destroying). They would likewise have to admit that if they so choose to promote contraception that they must also justify it on their consequential grounds in the same way as justifying certain types of murder (that is, that murder "can" be justified if it is one's self-interest or promotes the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, all things being equal).

For instance, whether or not these schools decided, by their own systems, to condone or condemn contraception is irrelevant to the fact that they must admit that it is qualitatively the same as actual-person-destroying (given my argument). Hence, contraception must be justified in these schools via the same arguments as any other acts used for the purpose of destroying life (i.e permissible abortion, euthanasia, etc.). Now as a point of note, these schools (all of them) are forms of what might be called “empirical ethics” and should all be dismissed anyway since to infer obligation from observation is always a fallacy (as no necessary connection exists between “is“ and “ought”---see Hume on the naturalistic fallacy ); therefore, since empirical ethical schools are always fallacious one is left with deontology and we have already seen that the deontological schools must forbid contraception (if they still allow for logic, as many Christians seemed to have abandoned in favor of mere sentimentality or cultural relevance).

My explanation was quite clear.

There are many reasons why people don't have children.

Irrelevant, willful pregnancy prevention is potential person destroying which is actual person destroying regardless of the "reasons" for why you engage in such.

But if you class murder as the destruction of potential life, then you, me, the whole of PoFo and the entire world are murderers.

I cannot verify that claim, so I do not make it.

Do you think 'blowing your load' in your wife's mouth when she is on the rag is acceptable but contraception isn't?

Correct. It follows from the syllogism.

After all, why do you have to procreate with your wife only? Biology and nature doesn't adhere to human ethics.

I am speaking of logical relationships, of which, include both biological and social factors. These are labeled under the circumstances of actualization. Marriage as a social contract by Divine Command, and therefore limits the circumstance of actualization.

Then there is the many, many sperm cells that would never reach an egg after ejaculation. Each is a potential life being lost.

I don's believe every sperm is sacred, likewise, I control for extraneous environmental conditions, including things that can lower sperm count, for there are countless factors that affect sperm count and tobacco and alcohol, but none of such, including tobacco and alcohol, are the willful prevention of pregnancy. Such, including conditions that may affect the egg quality, etc., are all controlled for under the logical qualifier "All Things Being Equal."

But women aren't exempt either. Every period is murder.

I already answered this in a response to someone else, and will repeat the argument here, likewise the OP is in reference only to the male component. All of this in the quote below and the OP:

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.

What makes you think that I don't know the reasons behind people using contraception or not having children?

Likewise, what makes you think that, even if I did, it would somehow change the validity of my premises? Logic is not a respecter of persons or their feelings.


As far as the Terminator is concerned, obviously, he would have to comeback as gynecologist to deceive Sarah Connor into getting an IUD or something. I was not suggesting he would go about it in such the way as he did when he tried to kill her in the film

[Pants-of-dog]

I never did ignore it. They are temporally different. Likewise, a load shot-off in your wife when she would be normally able to conceive, is not the same as PoD jr. born 10 months later. They are different because of the temporal conditions, but they are logically, essentially speaking, the same. Because, like I said, if you destroy the caterpillar, you destroy the butterfly it would otherwise become. Thus, is you use spermicide to destroy that load you shot-off in your wife, you destroy PoD jr. that would have otherwise been born 10 months later. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. This is a logical fact, it is an immutable relationship.

If you prevent you wife from getting pregnant, when she would otherwise become so, you are destroying the little PoDs that would have otherwise existed. This is both your intention in using contraception, by definition, and the result (as it is designed to achieve). This is not rocket science.

Again:

You define potential people as ideas.

Actual people are physical objects.

These are not just temporally different, but qualitatively different.

If they were not different, i.e. if the idea of something was the same thing as the actual thing, then you could live in the design of a house.

Lol at the all caps.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You define potential people as ideas.

Actual people are physical objects.

Does the phrase broken record mean anything to you? We already covered this relationship. Shall I educate you again on it?

If they were not different, i.e. if the idea of something was the same thing as the actual thing, then you could live in the design of a house.

A temporal difference is a qualitative difference, but that does not mean there is not a supra-temporal identity. That does not follow. A qualitative difference exists when different descriptive predicates can be attributed, but this does not mean that they do not have an identiarian relationship in this context, because they do. Unless you mean to suggest that killing a whole generation of caterpillars would not result in the non-existence of the corresponding butterflies that would otherwise exist?

Lol at the all caps.

lol, that was done on purpose for comedic reasons, glad you liked it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Does the phrase broken record mean anything to you? We already covered this relationship. Shall I educate you again on it?

Lol. You get triggered easily.

I know what the relationship is. It does not magically make them the same thing.

A temporal difference is a qualitative difference, but that does not mean there is not a supra-temporal identity. That does not follow. A qualitative difference exists when different descriptive predicates can be attributed, but this does not mean that they do not have an identiarian relationship in this context, because they do. Unless you mean to suggest that killing a whole generation of caterpillars would not result in the non-existence of the corresponding butterflies that would otherwise exist?

No. The idea of my kid and the actual kid do not have the same identity. In that respect, the caterpillar and the actual butterfly are even more alike than your ptoential person and an actual person. The design for David Wong’s axe is not his axe, even though the axe has an identity that exists beyond its changes. Or use Theseus’s boat as an example.

lol, that was done on purpose for comedic reasons, glad you liked it.

Sure.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. The idea of my kid and the actual kid do not have the same identity. In that respect, the caterpillar and the actual butterfly are even more alike than your ptoential person and an actual person. The design for David Wong’s axe is not his axe, even though the axe has an identity that exists beyond its changes. Or use Theseus’s boat as an example

False equivalency.

You yourself have just said that the "idea of your kid" and "your kid" are not the same thing right? Well, I agree, but the former is not a potential person like a load you shot into your wife when she was able to conceive. To make that comparison is a fallacy. Not thinking about a kid, does not necessarily mean you will or will not have a kid. How you handle your load, will affect such outcomes.

We are not talking about empty concepts, like mere ideas, the concept of "potential person" (as I argued awhile ago) does correspond to some physical reality that can be physically disrupted, or else contraception would not even enter the conversation (as it is a tangible reality); Likewise, a design of an axe is not the same as the requisite materials to make the axe.

[Pants-of-dog]

False equivalency.

You yourself have just said that the "idea of your kid" and "your kid" are not the same thing right? Well, I agree, but the former is not a potential person like a load you shot into your wife when she was able to conceive. To make that comparison is a fallacy. Not thinking about a kid, does not necessarily mean you will or will not have a kid. How you handle your load, will affect such outcomes.

We are not talking about empty concepts, like mere ideas, the concept of "potential person" (as I argued awhile ago) does correspond to some physical reality that can be physically disrupted, or else contraception would not even enter the conversation (as it is a tangible reality); Likewise, a design of an axe is not the same as the requisite materials to make the axe.

Since you previously described potential people as ideas or concepts, this seems like you are now contradicting yourself.

[B0ycey]

Don't get all triggered on me bro,

I'm not getting triggered, but if you make a claim you have to defend it. Perhaps everyone is making the same point. But that is because it is a strong point.

No, I allowed under section IV of the OP that there are several definitions of murder based on which ethical school you subscribe to. I never argued for any one ethical definition of murder in the OP, only that, depending on your ethical school, my argument could imply that murder was committed.

Section IV is your view to the points you made. But when you read the introduction along with section II and III, you can easily reach a different conclusion - one that makes every single person on the planet a murderer. Because I doubt anyone is 100% resourceful when it comes to procreation or always willfully partakes in sexual relations when the right time comes.

Irrelevant, willful pregnancy prevention is potential person destroying which is actual person destroying regardless of the "reasons" for why you engage in such.

Didn't you willfully ejaculate in your wife's mouth knowing that there was no chance of a potential person at the end of it? How, under your definition can you explain that this is not murder?

I cannot verify that claim, so I do not make it.

Under your definition and premises, that can only be the conclusion you reach. I don't make the claim because I define murder differently to you.

I am speaking of logical relationships, of which, include both biological and social factors. These are labeled under the circumstances of actualization. Marriage as a social contract by Divine Command, and therefore limits the circumstance of actualization.

So because you are married, the rules don't apply? Perhaps actual married murderers should use that excuse in court. Did you think it will be valid btw?

I don's believe every sperm is sacred, likewise, I control for extraneous environmental conditions, including things that can lower sperm count, for there are countless factors that affect sperm count and tobacco and alcohol, but none of such, including tobacco and alcohol, are the willful prevention of pregnancy. Such, including conditions that may affect the egg quality, etc., are all controlled for under the logical qualifier "All Things Being Equal."

If you don't consider every single sperm cell as sacred, then do you consider them a living soul or potential life? If not, then how is it murder? If so, then that means you have no remorse for life, and as such can't hold the moral high ground when it comes to defining murder.

What makes you think that I don't know the reasons behind people using contraception or not having children?

Likewise, what makes you think that, even if I did, it would somehow change the validity of my premises? Logic is not a respecter of persons or their feelings.

Your premise is valid as an idea or concept, but your conclusion is different to mine. And that is because you pick and choose what is acceptable in wilful prevention of potential life.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Since you previously described potential people as ideas or concepts, this seems like you are now contradicting yourself.

I haven't denied that potential persons were concepts, but I also argued previously that they (potential persons) have correspondence to reality, just as the law of identity (A=A) is a concept, but corresponds to any one object in physical space. What you characterized my argument as, was that because something is conceptual, it has no bearing to physical reality, like an empty idea, but that is contrary to my arguments made before, and my definition of concept as already clarified several times before to you in the thread.

Thus,

you committed the fallacy of a false equivalency.

You are attempting to critique a position that no one holds.

[Pants-of-dog]

I haven't denied that potential persons were concepts, but I also argued previously that they (potential persons) have correspondence to reality, just as the law of identity (A=A) is a concept, but corresponds to any one object in physical space. What you characterized my argument as, was that because something is conceptual, it has no bearing to physical reality, like an empty idea, but that is contrary to my arguments made before, and my definition of concept as already clarified several times before to you in the thread.

Thus,

you committed the fallacy of a false equivalency.

You are attempting to critique a position that no one holds.

So a potential person is an idea or concept that has a specific identity?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Section IV is your view to the points you made. But when you read the introduction along with section II and III, you can easily reach a different conclusion - one that makes every single person on the planet a murderer. Because I doubt anyone is 100% resourceful when it comes to procreation or always willfully partakes in sexual relations when the right time comes.

I'm not denying that most westerners would be murderers if they defined murder in such a way that my conclusion would require them to do so. I'm just saying I never made that universal accusation in my OP.

Perhaps everyone is making the same point. But that is because it is a strong point.

What point is that?

Didn't you willfully ejaculate in your wife's mouth knowing that there was no chance of a potential person at the end of it? How, under your definition can you explain that this is not murder?

Because I only do so when, given the natural course of events, and all things being equal, conception would not occur during vaginal intercourse. This is explained under the clarification section of the OP.

So because you are married, the rules don't apply? Perhaps actual married murderers should use that excuse in court. Did you think it will be valid btw?

What rules? I have stated that circumstances of actualization are both biologically and socially limited. The circumstance of actualization for a married couple is when the wife is able to conceive; hence, if pregnancy prevention is not practiced during these times, no potential persons and therefore actual persons are destroyed. Thus, willfully pursuing pregnancy with your wife when pregnancy is possible is all that is required under such a circumstance to avoid the point of the syllogism.

If you don't consider every single sperm cell as sacred, then do you consider them a living soul or potential life? If not, then how is it murder? If so, then that means you have no remorse for life, and as such can't hold the moral high ground when it comes to defining murder.

The relationship is a logical one, not necessarily an entirely biological or spiritual one. If you willfully stop or cease a person from coming into existence who would otherwise exist, under my moral system, you have committed murder. At the very least, no matter what you ethical system is, you have destroyed (logically) an actual person via destroying the potential person that exists in the context of the circumstance of actualization (which varies based on the case).

If I willfully cause to cease or stop someone who would otherwise exist given the natural course of events and not for reasons of warfare, self-defense, or capital punishment, then I have committed murder. Shooting you in the face right now, and wearing a condom tonight, would both qualify for such under my definition here. Both would be causing to cease or stopping someone, who otherwise still exist, from existing. You would stop or be caused to cease from continued existence if I shot you, and the child that would otherwise be conceived would have the same consequences for his existence.

Your premise is valid as an idea or concept, but your conclusion is different to mine.

How does my conclusion not follow from my premises?

So a potential person is an idea or concept that has a specific identity?

What do you mean by specific identity?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am using regular English.

Perhaps you should carefully and clearly define what a potential person is.

[B0ycey]

@Victoribus Spolia, I'm going to find a computer, because a lot of copying and pasting of your quotes are needed to respond to you.

[B0ycey]

Point One

I'm not denying that most westerners would be murderers if they defined murder in such a way that my conclusion would require them to do so. I'm just saying I never made that universal accusation in my OP.

Your quotes:

All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

You have used the term All along with a definition. So unless you are 100% resourceful, you have made that claim.


Point Two

What point is that?

You original post...

If you read it, you would not have posted pretty much anything else you wrote, most of which was addressed, and would take on the syllogism itself, which is pretty simple logic.

There you go.


Point Three

Because I only do so when, given the natural course of events, and all things being equal, conception would not occur during vaginal intercourse. This is explained under the clarification section of the OP.

Explain...

All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

I have already addressed that nature and human ethics are not the same. you do not have to 'blow your load' into your wife's mouth when you could have intercourse with someone else. And if you do, you break your own rules.


Point Four

What rules? I have stated that circumstances of actualization are both biologically and socially limited. The circumstance of actualization for a married couple is when the wife is able to conceive; hence, if pregnancy prevention is not practiced during these times, no potential persons and therefore actual persons are destroyed. Thus, willfully pursuing pregnancy with your wife when pregnancy is possible is all that is required under such a circumstance to avoid the point of the syllogism.

Explain...

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

Doesn't contradict this law:

All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

When you consider that you can have sex with more than one women at one time?


Point Five

The relationship is a logical one, not necessarily an entirely biological or spiritual one. If you willfully stop or cease a person from coming into existence who would otherwise exist, under my moral system, you have committed murder. At the very least, no matter what you ethical system is, you have destroyed (logically) an actual person via destroying the potential person that exists in the context of the circumstance of actualization (which varies based on the case).

Explain with this law:

All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

how a logical relationship trumps over a biological one?


Point Six

If I willfully cause to cease or stop someone who would otherwise exist given the natural course of events and not for reasons of warfare, self-defense, or capital punishment, then I have committed murder. Shooting you in the face right now, and wearing a condom tonight, would both qualify for such under my definition here. Both would be causing to cease or stopping someone, who otherwise still exist, from existing. You would stop or be caused to cease from continued existence if I shot you, and the child that would otherwise be conceived would have the same consequences for his existence.

But you have done that already. By blowing you load in your wifes mouth. What does it matter to a sperm cell if they hit latex or the inside of a mouth? They are not going to create potential life are they?


Point Seven

How does my conclusion not follow from my premises?

This

All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

And this...

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

Do not complement each other.

[Hindsite]

@Godstud, @Hindsite, Please....Continue...

I realize that would be entertaining, however, I have learned from past experience not to get into a pissing contest with Godstud, because he has friends in low places in this forum.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@B0ycey,



Dude, did you write that last post on your Atari after downing bottle of liquor?

Your point one: I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Point two is not a point that I can tell, nor do I have any idea what you are trying to criticize....like at all. Point three, is a request and a possible point, i think the two are related. Point four is basically the same as point three. I can help you with point five as that is a philosophical issue. point six is the same ( i think) as points three and point four. Point seven is also the same as point six, point three, and point four.

Holy shit dude. You cannot claim to have seven points, when 4/7 are the same thing. That is called redundancy.

I will address your 3-4 points, in proper numerical form, after I address the other folks.

Perhaps you should carefully and clearly define what a potential person is.

I did in the OP. ALSO, "regular English" is full of ambiguity, equivocation, oversimplifications, and generalizations. That is why philosophers insist on unpacking the meaning.

For instance, when you say "specific" do you mean temporally and physically specific, like a particular rock at a particular time and no other rock at no other time? Or do you mean that concept is a particular concept that corresponds to a particular temporal-physical object at a given time, but not necessarily only at that time? What about identity? Are you asking if a potential person's identity is afixed or exactly-the-same-as the temporal-physical object/event (hard correspondence), or that they are correlates based on rational relationship, like gravitation and mass were under Newton?

I have stated that a potential person "arises" conceptually given a certain circumstance of actualization (your fertile wife) and that this concept (the child that could be conceived) corresponds to certain physical aspects of this circumstance (i.e. your load). Hence, how you use your load in that circumstance affects the destiny of the potential person that arises given the possibility of conception.

Thus, if that does not answer your question about "specific identity," you will have to be more specific about what you mean about that term.

@Hindsite,

Is he a tattle-tale? Do tell! (which is an ironic request given what I just asked)

Okay, back to you @B0ycey,

NOTE:
I. My point one will correspond to your point one.
II. My point two will correspond to your point five.
III. My point three will correspond to your points: three, four, six, and seven.
IV. I will NOT be addressing your point two because it either doesn't make sense, is an insufficient attempt to answer my question, or is an attempt at a rhetorical flourish and I can't tell which and it doesn't seem significant anyway.
V. My points, as mentioned above, will be in true numerical form using Arabic numerals, in bold font, and may be broken into multiple parts, designated in the subset with an alphabetical addendum to the numeral itself, also in bold.

My Responses:

1. Your Argument In Sum: "Your claim that you did not make a universal accusation against all people in the world is contradicted by the propositional modifier in the syllogism 'ALL.'"

Response In Two Parts:

1A. First, If I were to say that All Potential Person Destroying is Actual Person Destroying, It does not therefore follow that all people committed potential person destroying. All the syllogism is saying is that when potential person destroying occurs, it is always actual person destroying via a logical relationship. It does not say, nor would it say, nor could I say, that all people were actual-person-destroyers because I would not make the claim that all people were willful potential-person-destroyers.

1B. You also seem to misunderstand the use of "All" in a logical syllogism. In correct propositional form, a premise must have the following: A Subject, A Copula, A Predicate, and The Modifiers: "All", "Some," or "None/Not" or Their alternative forms, at least in modification of the Subject. "All" in this case means, that in all instances of the subject, the predicate corresponds. This is true, logically speaking, so long as extraneous circumstances are controlled for, which they are, with the logical qualifier: "All Things Being Equal."

2. Your Argument in Sum: "Explain how logic trumps biology when it comes to determining that something is a potential-human-life?"

My Response in Two Parts:

2A. Logic trumps biology because the laws of logic are absolute and are necessary preconditions for human thought. The laws of science and biology are subject to change as they are by nature tentative based on conclusions made from empirical observation. The former are immutable, necessary, inviolable, and absolute, the latter are tentative, mutable, potentially violable, and sufficient. This is why logic trumps biology, philosophically speaking. Newton's laws came and went, the laws of logic do not and cannot.

2B. More specifically, to your question, it is not my position that sperm are potential people ipso facto. Sperm are vitae potentialis conditionally, and are not actual human life. This does not mean that I deny that sperm are "living things" as a biological category, but I am not arguing about living things in general, or living material, but only that which qualifies, ontologically, as a human person. Sperm, even if always "biologically alive" is not a human person under my position. To claim that was my position would be to misunderstand it. I am arguing that sperm, in certain contexts only, becomes, conceptually (logically) speaking a potential person because conception (the process where a potential person would become an actual person) is theoretically possible.

Hence, as an example: Under my position, if you were the only human left on earth, what you did with your sperm would be irrelevant to anything in my OP because no potential persons existed. Why? Because, logically speaking, potential persons can only exist if conception were theoretically possible (given a natural course of events and all things being equal). If you are the last human in existence, conception is not possible, thus your sperm is about as much of a potential person as wood chips or sand.

Hope this helps explain the position.

3. Your Argument in Sum: "Blowing Your Load In Your Wife's Mouth Is Potential Person Destroying Because, Even if Your Wife Were Not Fertile At The Time, There Are Other Women Who Are Fertile and Your Closing Off of The Circumstances With The Social Institution of Marriage is Arbitrary."

[Quick Note]: I am going to give you the benefit-of-the-doubt, that this is your actual argument, for if it is, it might be the first valid point that addresses something that is not preemptively addressed in the OP. I hope so, because it would mean you are the first one to levy an argument that actually needed to be addressed by my position that was not done so preemptively. Which would be fucking fantastic (finally someone has made a worthy challenge!!!)

My Response In Two Parts, Following An Introductory Preface:

Preface:

If this is, in fact, your argument, it points out that the narrowing of the context of circumstantial actualization to include social constraints (such as marriage) is arbitrary. This challenges one of the assumptions of the OP in a way its preemptive clarifications and definitions cannot sufficiently answer. Which is still fine (meaning that even if your objection were valid it would not affect the actual syllogism), as an argument is meant only to make a claim based on careful reasoning and not necessarily to include in it a possible defense to every possible objection, only to be sufficiently clear as to prevent objections that stem from misunderstanding or poor definitions (which so far, all such objections on this thread until now have been insubstantial and based solely on ignorance of syllogistic logic, not reading the argument through, or emotional appeals).

So, why is it an appropriate assumption to constrain the circumstance of actualization in the context of marriage? Could not a potential life still arise when one's wife was on the rag given that their are (presumably) other women who would be fertile outside the context of your marriage that could conceive an actual person with you? Thus, if you blow your load in your wife's mouth when she is pregnant or on the rag, would not that still be potential person destroying as you could have conceived with women other than your wife?

Here is why the social constraint of marriage is applicable as a condition of circumstantial actualization:

3A. Given that this argument is designed to be a starting point in discussing matters pertaining to ethics, it would seem that you are pointing out that a person who believes potential person destroying is murder would never be able to constrain himself to marriage (the implicit assertion of your argument), and thus must conceive with multiple women to the best of his ability to prevent potential-person-destroying and therefore actual-person-destroying.

HOWEVER, if this is the case, then by conceiving with multiple women, lets say, at a man-woman sex ratio of 1-4 on average, there would be a corresponding case of other men who would not be able to conceive with women at all and be forced to destroy potential-persons via masturbation, deviant sexuality, or prolonged and forced abstinence. This is because, the human sex ratio is, all-things-being-equal, universally: 1:1. Violating strict monogamy; therefore, increases, and does not decrease, potential person destroying and should be avoided if such is morally wrong.

3B. The biological and social constraints in my circumstances are not contradictory, for if we allow conceiving with multiple women, the overall destruction of potential persons is increased, not decreased, as the biological sex ratio of 1:1 is displaced.

Thus, strict monogamy, guarantees the least amount of willful potential-person destroying; whereas, polygamy and polyamory necessarily increase the amount of potential person-destroying.

This implies; therefore, that blowing my load in my wife's mouth when she cannot conceive is not potential person destroying because the alternative of procreating with multiple women would necessitate potential-person-destroying in some other men by upsetting the sex-ratio for copulation of 1:1. Thus, rationally, monogamy is as much of a biological as it is social constraint of the logical implications of intentionally anti-procreative sexuality. Thus, for reason of argument, it is rationally acceptable to say that when my wife is unable to conceive no potential person, logically, exists at that time, functionally it does not, for conceiving with other women is neither practically nor logically a viable alternative as it does not in reality actualize life overall, but overall decreases the actualization of life because by creating a disruption of the human sex ration, such actions are De Facto a net destroying of life.

Thus, if every man has his own wife, all things being equal, the least amount of potential-person-destroying is guaranteed, and potentially none so long as the social constraint of the circumstances of actualization are accepted.

Thus, the limiting of the circumstances of actualization to times of fertility in a monogamous marriage in the OP is entirely justified, and blowing my load in my wife's mouth while she is on the rag is permissible under my moral system, for I am working to maximize the most potential life possible in Net Terms.

[Pants-of-dog]

[
I did in the OP. ALSO, "regular English" is full of ambiguity, equivocation, oversimplifications, and generalizations. That is why philosophers insist on unpacking the meaning.

For instance, when you say "specific" do you mean temporally and physically specific, like a particular rock at a particular time and no other rock at no other time? Or do you mean that concept is a particular concept that corresponds to a particular temporal-physical object at a given time, but not necessarily only at that time? What about identity? Are you asking if a potential person's identity is afixed or exactly-the-same-as the temporal-physical object/event (hard correspondence), or that they are correlates based on rational relationship, like gravitation and mass were under Newton?

I have stated that a potential person "arises" conceptually given a certain circumstance of actualization (your fertile wife) and that this concept (the child that could be conceived) corresponds to certain physical aspects of this circumstance (i.e. your load). Hence, how you use your load in that circumstance affects the destiny of the potential person that arises given the possibility of conception.

Thus, if that does not answer your question about "specific identity," you will have to be more specific about what you mean about that term.

Does the potential person have an identity? Yes or no?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Does the potential person have an identity? Yes or no?

A Logical identity, Yes.

A Corresponding set of physical referents, circumstantially qualified, Yes.

A specific ipso-facto physical identity, No.

So, like I said, it depends on what you mean.

[Pants-of-dog]

A Logical identity, Yes.

A Corresponding set of physical referents, circumstantially qualified, Yes.

A specific ipso-facto physical identity, No.

So, like I said, it depends on what you mean.

What is a logical identity, and how does that differ from the identity that we all have as people?

What is a corresponding set of physical referents? How does a concept or idea have them?

And by identity, I mean a unique persona that stays with a thing for its entire existence no matter how much that thing changes.

It seems like you are saying that a potential person is the idea of the possible kid if pregnancy occurs. If that is what the potential person is, then no, it does not have an identity.