Is Contraception Murder? - 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.
#14863492
[WARNING: IF YOU ARE NOT TRAINED IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY, THIS THREAD MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU, THE AUTHOR OF THE OP WOULD APPRECIATE INFORMED READERS AND POSTERS IF POSSIBLE. THANKS. ALSO: TRIGGERING MAY OCCUR, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED]

Imagevia Imgflip GIF Maker


I. Introduction

Most have either seen or heard of the movie "The Terminator," in that movie the Terminator was sent back in time for the ultimate purpose of eliminating John Connor, of which the means was assassinating Sarah Connor (his mother). But answer me this: Would "The Terminator" have succeeded in eliminating John Connor if he had disguised himself as a gynecologist and implanted a permanent IUD (birth control device) in Sarah Connor? The answer is as obvious as my syllogism below, if you want to eliminate people who would otherwise exist (given a natural course of events), then practice birth control. If intentionally eliminating people is murder, then birth control must be regarded as a type of murder in the same way the Terminator's ultimate goal was to murder John Connor. If this is the case, then people who use birth control are no less nefarious in their intentions when practicing contraception than the Terminator, whether you call it murder or not, and that is a matter of simple logic as I shall now demonstrate.

II. The Pronatalism Master Argument

Syllogism One

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]


III. Definitions and Explanations

Terms To Be Defined:

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

2. Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.

IV. Further Thoughts for Clarification

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).

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.

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 :rockon:
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 17 Nov 2017 14:34, edited 1 time in total.
#14863493
No. Contraception is not murder. if you could make that claim, then every time a man masturbated it would also be murder. :lol:

The arguments that procreation is of utmost importance is nonsense, as well. It might be very important if we weren't already very over-populated.

Here's a scenario that I found intriguing, and that pro-lifers can't really answer:
You are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

“Do you
A) save the child, or
B) save the thousand embryos?“
“There is no 'C.' 'C' means you all die.”
#14863496
Godstud wrote:No. Contraception is not murder. if you could make that claim, then every time a man masturbated it would also be murder.

The arguments that procreation is of utmost importance is nonsense, as well. It might be very important if we weren't already very over-populated.


How about you read the fucking post and maybe you'd know that the objections regarding masturbation were covered, as well as teleological ethical school objections qualified.
#14863497
People don't always respond the way you want them to.

Why are you asking a question if you know it already? You don't want to discuss it. :lol: DUMB.
#14863498
Ok, lets discuss it.

Godstud wrote:No. Contraception is not murder. if you could make that claim, then every time a man masturbated it would also be murder.

The arguments that procreation is of utmost importance is nonsense, as well. It might be very important if we weren't already very over-populated


Image
#14863500
I was answering your topic question. How is that a strawman?

I apologize for responding to your stupid thread. :knife:
#14863502
Godstud wrote:I was answering your topic question. How is that a strawman?

What a stupid thread. You won't even discuss what you posted. :lol:

If you didn't want comments, then why did you post your legal document and ask a question? Pretty dumb opening post, IMO.


Its a strawman because your arguments of what the position implies was already subsumed in the argument as presented (AND YOU ATTACKED THAT SILLY POSITION THAT I DO NOT HOLD).

The question is obviously a rhetorical question as a thread title and anyone with a second-grade reading comprehension can tell that the OP is in propositional form and is an argument, not an inquiry.

You want to discuss what my answer is on the masturbation issue? Read the post.

If it meets the definition of intentionally anti-procreative sexuality than it is a form of murder, but not all masturbation does under my definition and explanation.

I also addressed the argument of teleological ethical schools, that would hold to contraception as a means of preventing overpopulation, and pointed out that they may hold that position, but would still be forced to admit the validity of the arguments.

You call my OP a "legal document," that is fine. If it is above your intellectual powers to comprehend, then I have no problem not discussing it with you because I want to have an informed debate with people, not address dumb objections by people who didn't read the fucking OP.

Pardon me if that makes this a "dumb thread," which is an incredibly ironic statement given the context and content of your current posting.
User avatar
By Beren
#14863506
Godstud wrote:I was answering your topic question. How is that a strawman?

I apologize for responding to your stupid thread. :knife:

I really wonder why you did that, the greatest questions in life must be discussed I guess.
#14863507
Beren wrote:I really wonder why you did that, the greatest questions in life must be discussed I guess.


I can't tell if this is a critique of him or me...... :hmm:
#14863514
Well that was desperately stupid.

If a potential person is the same as an actual person then using carbon atoms in any way but to create a human being is a potential person being murdered.

WHY ARE THE COWS HOARDING ALL THE CARBON MEANT FOR HUMANS!! :lol:

Every sperm cell that fails to implant in an egg is a tragic death, a potential human cut short.

Or it's just a fucking cell that we produce millions of every day.

Not to mention you use a loaded word like murder (unjustified killing) without even attempting to show that killing a potential person is always unjustified. Even for just the simple sake of human biology the process of fertilization requires the deaths of countless sperm to make one sperm fertilize the egg. So is human biology a genocide of potentials and unjustified? Or is it justified because a single person does manage to be born?

If you say it's justified then you are admitting that killing millions upon millions of potential people is justified by a single actual life, in which case you are refuting your own assertion that a potential person is equal to an actual person.

If you say that each potential person sperm cell is equal to an actual person then we are constrained by our own biology to be immoral and we have no choice so the question is moot anyway.
#14863520
Contraception is murder, but murder is a moral good. Observe:

1. Meat is murder (The Smiths, 1985).
2. Meat is a source of protein.
3. Protein is good.

Therefore, murder is a source of good.
#14863523
Victoribus Spolia wrote:[WARNING: IF YOU ARE NOT TRAINED IN LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY, THIS THREAD MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU, THE AUTHOR OF THE OP WOULD APPRECIATE INFORMED READERS AND POSTERS IF POSSIBLE. THANKS. ALSO: TRIGGERING MAY OCCUR, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED]


Thank you for warning us that you might get triggered.

I. Introduction

Most have either seen or heard of the movie "The Terminator," in that movie the Terminator was sent back in time for the ultimate purpose of eliminating John Connor, of which the means was assassinating Sarah Connor (his mother). But answer me this: Would "The Terminator" have succeeded in eliminating John Connor if he had disguised himself as a gynecologist and implanted a permanent IUD (birth control device) in Sarah Connor? The answer is as obvious as my syllogism below, if you want to eliminate people who would otherwise exist (given a natural course of events), then practice birth control. If intentionally eliminating people is murder, then birth control must be regarded as a type of murder in the same way the Terminator's ultimate goal was to murder John Connor. If this is the case, then people who use birth control are no less nefarious in their intentions when practicing contraception than the Terminator, whether you call it murder or not, and that is a matter of simple logic as I shall now demonstrate.


The Terminator’s ultimate goal was not to murder John Connor. It was to destroy any hope of resistance to Skynet.

You really should watch the first two movies. They are classics. The rest, not so much.

II. The Pronatalism Master Argument

Syllogism One

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


I disagree. If you are arguing that all intentionally non-procreative sex destroys potential persons, then you are wrong. Many embryos have been fertilised by people trying not to.

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.


Maybe, but that does not mean that all potentials should be treated as actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]


Not at all. Potential people are objects that could potentially become people. They are not proto people that will inevitably become people.

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]



Nope. See above.

III. Definitions and Explanations

Terms To Be Defined:

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

2. Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.


Please note that you have not included your redefining of the word “potential”.

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.


Nope. Basic biology contradicts you here.

Sex is not an act of the potential person. It is an act of two actual persons, i.e. the parents. Nor does it transform the potential person into an actual person. Nine months in the womb do that. Sex transform two zygotes into a fertilised egg. The fertilised egg is a potential person. Zygotes are not.

Also, given the natural course of things, the fertilised egg could easily miscarry, thereby never becoming an actual person.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).


While all actual people were, at one time, potential people, it is incorrect to claim that all potential people become actual people. Miscarriage is an obvious example of potential people never becoming actual people.

For every potential-person there is not a corresponding actual person.

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.


Your premises are flawed.

IV. Further Thoughts for Clarification

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).

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.

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 :rockon:


Anti-procreative sex sounds good.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 17 Nov 2017 15:25, edited 1 time in total.
#14863524
mikema63 wrote:If a potential person is the same as an actual person then using carbon atoms in any way but to create a human being is a potential person being murdered.


That is not how I defined destroying, I defined such as: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

So opting not to clone available cells, or combing atoms in such and such a way, would not be a disruption of a natural course of events (all things being equal) given my argument.

Likewise, I defined potential persons in the context of my argument in regards to my explanations of my premises:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.


Thus, I would not argue that all sperm at all times is a potential person. To say otherwise is to mischaracterize my argument.

mikema63 wrote:WHY ARE THE COWS HOARDING ALL THE CARBON MEANT FOR HUMANS!!

Every sperm cell that fails to implant in an egg is a tragic death, a potential human cut short.

Or it's just a fucking cell that we produce millions of every day.


Not my position, See above.

mikema63 wrote:Not to mention you use a loaded word like murder (unjustified killing) without even attempting to show that killing a potential person is always unjustified. Even for just the simple sake of human biology the process of fertilization requires the deaths of countless sperm to make one sperm fertilize the egg. So is human biology a genocide of potentials and unjustified? Or is it justified because a single person does manage to be born?


My definitions are clear:

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

Whether such destroying is murder is based on the ethical school, as I also explained in the following:

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).
User avatar
By Beren
#14863528
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Terminator’s ultimate goal was not to murder John Connor. It was to destroy any hope of resistance to Skynet.

You really should watch the first two movies. They are classics. The rest, not so much.

The first one is a classic, the second one is for families and kids, the third one is a first date movie.
#14863530
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Terminator’s ultimate goal was not to murder John Connor. It was to destroy any hope of resistance to Skynet.


That was not the specific mission parameters of the Terminator. It was programmed to go back in time to kill the mother of leader of the human resistance (John Connor). Dr. Silverman in the interrogation scene even refers (jokingly) to the Terminator's mission, as described by Kyle Reese, as "a kind of retro-active abortion."

Skynet's ultimate goal was carried out through the Terminator's specific goal.

Pants-of-dog wrote:.... first two movies. They are classics. The rest, not so much.


Finally something we agree on.

Pants-of-dog wrote: If you are arguing that all intentionally non-procreative sex destroys potential persons, then you are wrong. Many embryos have been fertilised by people trying not to


That is not the argument, that would be a separate premise with a different subject modified as "unintentionally." I am not talking about unintentional sex acts here, I am referring to intentionally non-procreative sex acts only here, as that is the point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sex is not an act of the potential person. It is an act of two actual persons, i.e. the parents. Nor does it transform the potential person into an actual person. Nine months in the womb do that. Sex transform two zygotes into a fertilised egg. The fertilised egg is a potential person. Zygotes are not.

Also, given the natural course of things, the fertilised egg could easily miscarry, thereby never becoming an actual person.


Sex is not the act of the potential person (true, but I never claimed otherwise), Sex (when conception is logically possible in the ordinary sense) is the circumstance by which a potential person exists as a logical concept; wherein, given the natural course of events, all things being equal (controlling for variable conditions), an actual person would actualize via transition.

The status of a fertilized egg as a potential or actual person will be based on the ethical school, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the logical concept of potential person which has a metaphysical and epistemological reality, not necessarily a biological one per se.

As far as "miscarriages" They are controlled for in the syllogism under the qualifier (all things being equal), thus all things being equal, when natural sex occurs, offspring are conceived, and if offspring are conceived (all things being equal) such are born. All things being equal controls for all other exceptionable factors such as miscarriage, fungal infections that would be spermicidal, etc, etc. Plus, a miscarriage would not be "intentional" under my definitions anyway.


Pants-of-dog wrote:While all actual people were, at one time, potential people, it is incorrect to claim that all potential people become actual people. Miscarriage is an obvious example of potential people never becoming actual people. For every potential-person there is not a corresponding actual person.


Once again, this is why "all things being equal" was included as qualifier controlling for such. Likewise, whether a fetus is an actual or potential persons depends on the ethical school and is really irrelevant to the nature of the argument itself.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your premises are flawed.


No, they are not, you missed essential qualifiers and definitions in the argument itself that answer your objections thus far. Please feel free to try again.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anti-procreative sex sounds good.


That would depend on what you mean and what your ethical school in fact was.
#14863531
Beren wrote:The first one is a classic, the second one is for families and kids, the third one is a first date movie.


If I took my old lady to T3 as a first date, we wouldn't be married today. :lol:

That is terrible dating advice.
#14863532
Heisenberg wrote:Contraception is murder, but murder is a moral good. Observe:

1. Meat is murder (The Smiths, 1985).
2. Meat is a source of protein.
3. Protein is good.

Therefore, murder is a source of good.


You are equivocating here.

Murder being a moral good in-and-of itself ≠ murder being the source of some other good. You are taking these two as the same and that is equivocation.

For instance, it is good that lock smiths have employment which depends upon a demand derived from the existence or potential of theft. This does not mean that theft is itself good.
#14863534
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That was not the specific mission parameters of the Terminator. It was programmed to go back in time to kill the mother of leader of the human resistance (John Connor). Dr. Silverman in the interrogation scene even refers (jokingly) to the Terminator's mission, as described by Kyle Reese, as "a kind of retro-active abortion."

Skynet's ultimate goal was carried out through the Terminator's specific goal.


Well, if you want to look at it that way, his specific goal was to kill Sarah Connor.

That is not the argument, that would be a separate premise with a different subject modified as "unintentionally." I am not talking about unintentional sex acts here, I am referring to intentionally non-procreative sex acts only here, as that is the point.


Again, people intentionally trying to not get pregnant can and do get pregnant.

Sex is not the act of the potential person (true, but I never claimed otherwise), Sex (when conception is logically possible in the ordinary sense) is the circumstance by which a potential person exists as a logical concept; wherein, given the natural course of events, all things being equal (controlling for variable conditions), an actual person would actualize via transition.

The status of a fertilized egg as a potential or actual person will be based on the ethical school, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the logical concept of potential person which has a metaphysical and epistemological reality, not necessarily a biological one per se.


Now potential people exist solely as logical concepts? Lol.

If that is the case, then sex and potential people are two unrelated things. One is a biological act, and the other is an idea.

If you want to treat killing potnetial people as murder, then you are arguing that murder should be redefined to include not allowing ideas to come to fruition. I have an idea of myself as an awesome dancer. So, if you were to break my kneecaps, that would be the equivalent of murder, because you “killed” the potential me that would dance.

As far as "miscarriages" They are controlled for in the syllogism under the qualifier (all things being equal), thus all things being equal, when natural sex occurs, offspring are conceived, and if offspring are conceived (all things being equal) such are born. All things being equal controls for all other exceptionable factors such as miscarriage, fungal infections that would be spermicidal, etc, etc. Plus, a miscarriage would not be "intentional" under my definitions anyway.


I see, you are redefining “all things being equal” to a specific set of circumstances and actions that could easily not occur.

And yes, my point was that non-intentional acts can also interfere.

Once again, this is why "all things being equal" was included as qualifier controlling for such. Likewise, whether a fetus is an actual or potential persons depends on the ethical school and is really irrelevant to the nature of the argument itself.


As long as we agree that not all potential people become actual people.

No, they are not, you missed essential qualifiers and definitions in the argument itself that answer your objections thus far. Please feel free to try again.


No, i just used words as they actually are defined and took biology into account.
User avatar
By Beren
#14863535
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If I took my old lady to T3 as a first date, we wouldn't be married today. :lol:

That is terrible dating advice.

It's not a dating advice, that's what the movie is supposed to be. It's not for everyone though, of course.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

Lol “fuck wad child”. I love it when @Drlee goes[…]

Salma Hayek: Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too

I can’t believe Venus doesn’t have a moon. And acc[…]

Millenials rejecting capitalism? Doubtful. The M[…]