Is Contraception Murder? - Page 6 - 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.
#14867232
Pants-of-dog wrote:What is a logical identity, and how does that differ from the identity that we all have as people?


A logical identity is conceptual by nature. "Humanity" is a logical identity, You, as PoD, are not "Humanity." You may share in humanity, or be subsumed in it, but "Humanity" is a concept, it is not itself ipso facto, physical, even if it has physical referents, which goes towards answering your next question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What is a corresponding set of physical referents? How does a concept or idea have them?


"Humanity" is itself a logical concept and it "has" physical referents in the sense that actual human beings, as physical entities, are subsumed under that conceptual category.

Likewise, the laws of logic themselves are universal, immutable, and absolute laws that are non-physical, but have physical referents. Observe the following:

The Laws

1. A=A. (Law of Identity)
2. All A≠Non-A (Law of Non-Contradiction)
3. Either A or Non-A. (Law of The Excluded Middle)

The Physical Referents of The Non-Physical Concepts:

1. A Dog is A Dog.
2. All Dog is Not Non-Dog.
3. Either Dog or Non-Dog.

Hence, a potential person has a logical identity, it is a concept like the law of identity or the category of humanity. It does not have an ipso facto physical identity like a particular human at a particular time; however it does have physical referents, just as the above. Which, based on my argument, is your sperm when conception is theoretically possible in the circumstance of actualization, given the natural course of events, and all things being equal.

Thus, you sperm, in certain circumstances only, becomes the physical referent of the logical concept of "potential person."

Pants-of-dog wrote:And by identity, I mean a unique persona that stays with a thing for its entire existence no matter how much that thing changes.


Well, given my answers already, the answer would have to be Yes. The potential person necessarily corresponds to an actual person and had that potential person not subsumed everything he would be as an actual person via a fixed persona (which is likewise potential), the actual person could not exist with his unique persona.

Therefore, in that very narrow sense, yes, a potential person, when such exists and for as long as he exists, has an identity as unique persona that is tied to/subsumed in the concept itself. The nature and role of what a potential person is, in relation to an actual person, demands this conclusion.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


No, because a mere idea, or thought, is not a potential person. A potential person is the person that would otherwise exist. Logically, a potential person's relationship to an actual person is the same as a caterpillar to a butterfly (remember, logically speaking, not physically speaking). If the natural course of events is permitted to progress, all things being equal, the caterpillar WILL become a buttefly, this will happen unless the process is disrupted. This logically, is very different from the "idea" or "imagining" of a child you conjure independently in your own mind. Such do not have any necessary physical referents or any identity in the sense you are proposing. Potential persons are tied to certain physical circumstances (e.g. the possibility of conception), ideas or imaginings are not.
#14867273
So it isn’t a concept or idea and it’s not a physical thing and it has an identity but not the way we do.

How is it magically like an actual person? Because ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL?
#14867281
Image

Pants-of-dog wrote:So it isn’t a concept or idea and it’s not a physical thing and it has an identity but not the way we do.

How is it magically like an actual person? Because ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL?


Have we reached your mental limits my friend or are you just trolling to troll?

1. I differentiated between a logical concept and an imaginary idea that you conjure in your mind. They are not the same thing. The LAW of logic is a non-physical concept, it has an identity, and it has physical referents, but it is not a physical thing. A potential person is a logical concept, it is therefore not an ipso facto physical thing, but it has physical referents. It has an identity by your own definition of having a fixed and unique persona (by which I am defining as essential qualities to person-hood, even if only as potentials).

2. There is no "magic" there is only logical necessity. corresponding to your sperm at a time when getting your wife pregnant is possible, is a potential person that is, logically, going to become an actual person if the natural course of events is allowed to proceed. If you use birth control, you eliminate that potential person, and therefore the actual person that would have otherwise been in a state of becoming, by your actions. Therefore, you destroyed an actual person by destroying the potential person via contraception.

3. These concept are logical concepts, they have real fixed identities, but they are neither physical, nor are they the random imaginations that pop in your mind that you call your own ideas. "Humanity" is not a made up idea, it is a category with its own identity that applies as a general category to physical referents. I already explained all of this to you, like a dozen fucking times.
#14867286
Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. I differentiated between a logical concept and an imaginary idea that you conjure in your mind. They are not the same thing. The LAW of logic is a non-physical concept, it has an identity, and it has physical referents, but it is not a physical thing. A potential person is a logical concept, it is therefore not an ipso facto physical thing, but it has physical referents. It has an identity by your own definition of having a fixed and unique persona (by which I am defining as essential qualities to person-hood, even if only as potentials).


So a potential person is a concept.

And I think you misunderstood what I meant by identity. For example, I clearly said identity is not fixed, but is instead changeable.

As far as I can tell, it does not have an identity. My baby wearing her boots inside right now has an identity that has been around since she first started developing in the womb. But she did not have an identity before gestation started.

2. There is no "magic" there is only logical necessity. corresponding to your sperm at a time when getting your wife pregnant is possible, is a potential person that is, logically, going to become an actual person if the natural course of events is allowed to proceed. If you use birth control, you eliminate that potential person, and therefore the actual person that would have otherwise been in a state of becoming, by your actions. Therefore, you destroyed an actual person by destroying the potential person via contraception.


Just because the concept of my kid has some sort of connection to my sperm, it does not mean that this concept is an actual person. Just like my design of a house has a connection to the materials which make up a house, but is not magically a house because of that connection.

3. These concept are logical concepts, they have real fixed identities, but they are neither physical, nor are they the random imaginations that pop in your mind that you call your own ideas. "Humanity" is not a made up idea, it is a category with its own identity that applies as a general category to physical referents. I already explained all of this to you, like a dozen fucking times.


Calm down. This is not a serious discussion.
#14867314
Victoribus Spollia wrote:murder

Isn't the sex act itself the murder of millions of 'potential' people? A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries.

Surely, if you wish to maximise potential a technological solution would be more efficient.

Ectogenesis

Baby factories could harvest a woman's eggs (hundreds of eggs are recruited each month, but more than 99% will ultimately die without ever being ovulated) and fertilise them in the laboratory.

In April this year, researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia announced their development of an artificial womb. Their results show that lambs (at the equivalent of a premature human foetus of 22-24 weeks) are able to successfully grow in the biobag, with the oldest lamb now more than one year old.

Image

Researchers at Cambridge University, meanwhile, have also kept a human embryo alive outside the body for 13 days using a mix of nutrients that mimic conditions in the womb. The embryo survived several days longer than previously observed and research only stopped because they were approaching the 14-day legal limit for the length of time an embryo can be kept in a lab.

Ethics rather than technology are the limiting factor.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 02 Dec 2017 16:03, edited 5 times in total.
#14867320
@Victoribus Spolia, I understand my points were complicated and perhaps in a format that is most definately poor. But to simplify it in very basic terms, your premise and conclusions contradict each other. Not only that, you can easily reach a different conclusion from it. I have read your spin and all you are doing is justifying a point that contradicts the term 'all' with the phase 'all potential life destroying is actual life destroying'. It doesn't matter how you spin it or how you justify it, every single sperm cell is a potential life and that is just a fact. I will repeat that just so you can digest it. Every single sperm cell is a potential life. Every single one. So under your definition, you have to be a murder when you decide to partake in oral sex. Whether you move the goal posts in section four or when I highlight you can have intercourse with other fertile females when your wife is on her period is irrelevant. The rules you set are in section two and three and they do not compliment your opinions within section four.
#14867959
ingliz wrote:Isn't the sex act itself the murder of millions of 'potential' people?


No. Only one's semen in general during times when conception were theoretically possible given the natural course of events, all things being equal. See the OP. Likewise, I do not attribute any potentiality to the woman's egg due the issue of passivity regarding her role in conception and the involuntary character of female ovulation, but you would know that if you had read the OP or my answer to that exact question that I have repeated to various posters several times in this thread.

ingliz wrote:Surely, if you wish to maximise potential a technological solution would be more efficient.


That is not more efficient, are you actually suggesting it would be easier and more cost effective for all humans on earth to begin Ectogenesis than to stop wearing condoms when their women were fertile? That is a ridiculous notion. Besides, as was stated, potentiality exists when conception is theoretically possible, the limited access and availability, and impractical nature of these technologies, as well as there oft-teneable futures based on economic-technological dependencies, would likely not make them qualify under my definitions in the OP as a "natural course of events" which is subsumed under the "circumstance of transition/acutalization."

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I think you misunderstood what I meant by identity. For example, I clearly said identity is not fixed, but is instead changeable.


False, you stated that identity of a thing is something that remains no matter how much the thing changes:

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


Pants-of-dog wrote:My baby wearing her boots inside right now has an identity that has been around since she first started developing in the womb. But she did not have an identity before gestation started.


She conceptually preexisted as a potential person when your wife was fertile, it was a real conceptual identity fixed to that moment (or series of moments) in time. You acted upon your sexual urges in a manner that did not intentionally, and preemptively, stop her transition from a potentiality into an actuality. Had you done so, everything your daughter could of been, would have been nil. The reason we can speak in potentialities at all as human beings is because there is such a thing as conceptual identity.

Similarly, the potential person of Adolf Hitler, subsuming his identity and essential characteristics, existed at a certain point in time, and by the natural course of human events, was conceived, born, lived, and died. Had that natural course of events been disrupted, through contraception or by killing his mother, etc., that potentiality would have ceased and the corresponding actuality would never have been.

This is what makes the Terminator work as a film, if there was no potential John Connor to ever arise in relation to Sarah Connor, then killing her would be pointless because anyone could have been a John Connor via a random act of sexuality. But John Connor has a fixed identity in actuality and therefore a fixed identity as a potential that made the SPECIFIC target of Sarah Connor significant, no other mother could have produced John Connor, his unique persona (your terms) as an identity was fixed to his potentiality and actuality given the people and the circumstances of his conception.

Every conception that is preemptively prevented, is the ending, or causing to cease, of a unique persona that would otherwise have existed. If you had chosen to use birth control, your baby girl wearing boots would not have existed, her unique identity would have been preemptively caused to cease and you could never have gotten that back. You didn't, now you have her.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Just like my design of a house has a connection to the materials which make up a house, but is not magically a house because of that connection.


There are problems with your analogy in that we often do not speak of home construction as a natural inevitability, all things being equal, for the entire process is volitional; whereas, in the topic at hand, the act sexuality is volitional but the actual event of conception is both natural and non-volitional. So the analogy does not really work for important reasons, choosing to not build a house is not a disruption of something that would otherwise happen had you not interfered because a constant act of will is required throughout the whole project in order for it to happen. Likewise, as they say when they save a child from a burning home: "we can always build another house, but we could never make another Johnny." In theory, the same exact house could be independently built and designed, but even if you make another baby, it will never be the same person as the one who's existence was either cut short or never permitted to actualize.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Calm down. This is not a serious discussion.


No, that would require a serious opponent, of which you do not qualify.

B0ycey wrote:@Victoribus Spolia, I understand my points were complicated and perhaps in a format that is most definately poor. But to simplify it in very basic terms, your premise and conclusions contradict each other. Not only that, you can easily reach a different conclusion from it. I have read your spin and all you are doing is justifying a point that contradicts the term 'all' with the phase 'all potential life destroying is actual life destroying'. It doesn't matter how you spin it or how you justify it, every single sperm cell is a potential life and that is just a fact. I will repeat that just so you can digest it. Every single sperm cell is a potential life. Every single one. So under your definition, you have to be a murder when you decide to partake in oral sex. Whether you move the goal posts in section four or when I highlight you can have intercourse with other fertile females when your wife is on her period is irrelevant. The rules you set are in section two and three and they do not compliment your opinions within section four.



Wow. Your are SO triggered its shocking, you make a crappy post and I generously accomodate it and even compliment your original argument, and you have this gem of an emotional response.

Let summarize:

Your post in background, and my response in the foreground:

Image
#14867963
@Victoribus Spolia I'm not triggered, but you have to accept your rules.

But on a lighter note, you're a Trump supporter aren't you? How is the GOP tax reforms for your large and extending family?
#14867981
Victoribus Spolia wrote:False, you stated that identity of a thing is something that remains no matter how much the thing changes:


Please note that I did not say identity was fixed there. Just that people remain with the same identity even though the person changes. That does not mean identity is fixed.

Now that we have nitpicked this irrelevant tangent, we can move on.

She conceptually preexisted as a potential person when your wife was fertile, it was a real conceptual identity fixed to that moment (or series of moments) in time.


No.

The idea of my kid at that time was just a nebulous possibility. It was not an idea that had identity in any useful sense of the word.

You acted upon your sexual urges in a manner that did not intentionally, and preemptively, stop her transition from a potentiality into an actuality. Had you done so, everything your daughter could of been, would have been nil. The reason we can speak in potentialities at all as human beings is because there is such a thing as conceptual identity.

Similarly, the potential person of Adolf Hitler, subsuming his identity and essential characteristics, existed at a certain point in time, and by the natural course of human events, was conceived, born, lived, and died. Had that natural course of events been disrupted, through contraception or by killing his mother, etc., that potentiality would have ceased and the corresponding actuality would never have been.

This is what makes the Terminator work as a film, if there was no potential John Connor to ever arise in relation to Sarah Connor, then killing her would be pointless because anyone could have been a John Connor via a random act of sexuality. But John Connor has a fixed identity in actuality and therefore a fixed identity as a potential that made the SPECIFIC target of Sarah Connor significant, no other mother could have produced John Connor, his unique persona (your terms) as an identity was fixed to his potentiality and actuality given the people and the circumstances of his conception.

Every conception that is preemptively prevented, is the ending, or causing to cease, of a unique persona that would otherwise have existed. If you had chosen to use birth control, your baby girl wearing boots would not have existed, her unique identity would have been preemptively caused to cease and you could never have gotten that back. You didn't, now you have her.


No. There is no unique persona at the time that people are haiving sex.

There are problems with your analogy in that we often do not speak of home construction as a natural inevitability, all things being equal, for the entire process is volitional; whereas, in the topic at hand, the act sexuality is volitional but the actual event of conception is both natural and non-volitional. So the analogy does not really work for important reasons, choosing to not build a house is not a disruption of something that would otherwise happen had you not interfered because a constant act of will is required throughout the whole project in order for it to happen. Likewise, as they say when they save a child from a burning home: "we can always build another house, but we could never make another Johnny." In theory, the same exact house could be independently built and designed, but even if you make another baby, it will never be the same person as the one who's existence was either cut short or never permitted to actualize.


The analogy works for what it needs to do: it shows that the relationship between an idea and its corresponding physical stuff does not magically make the idea the same thing as the stuff.

No, that would require a serious opponent, of which you do not qualify.


Wow. Your are SO triggered it’s shocking.
#14867998
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that I did not say identity was fixed there. Just that people remain with the same identity even though the person changes. That does not mean identity is fixed.

Now that we have nitpicked this irrelevant tangent, we can move on.


This is not irrelevant, if something is not fixed, than it is in flux, an identity in flux can hardly be called an identity, which is likely why yo described it in the manner that you did, but if that is the case, than it is fixed. The reason that is relevant is because it means that the unique persona of your offspring exists in its potential form as a stable concept, as something that remains constant through its transitions in time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

The idea of my kid at that time was just a nebulous possibility. It was not an idea that had identity in any useful sense of the word.


This is just a repeating of your contrary position, not an argument.

A potential person is not a nebulous possibility. Possible and potential are not the same thing, especially in the way such is defined and used in the argument. A potential is something that WILL become actual so long as the process is not willfully distrupted, all things being equal. In contrast, a "nebulous possiblity" is one of a multitude of likely outcomes.

Logically, one-out-of-a-multitude-of-likely-outcomes" is not what we are talking about. The fact is, if you had willfully disrupted conception, your daughter, who would have otherwise existed, would have been made to not exist. You would have destroyed her actual existence preemptively by destroying her potential existence via your willful act. You would be acting as the Terminator in relation to John Connor, only with your own daughter,and willfully so, because the purpose of such an act is to make it so that he/she will not exist. That is the purpose of such contraceptive acts, to stop or to cause-to-cease the existence of those that would otherwise exist. If this is not the case, pregnancy prevention, generally, would be pointless.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. There is no unique persona at the time that people are haiving sex.


This is not an argument, and I addressed your error above. Please review.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Wow. Your are SO triggered it’s shocking.


Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
#14868008
Victoribus Spolia wrote:are you actually suggesting it would easier and more cost effective...

Ease and cost? These are potential actual people we are talking about, not puppies.


:roll:
#14868011
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is not irrelevant, if something is not fixed, than it is in flux, an identity in flux can hardly be called an identity, which is likely why yo described it in the manner that you did, but if that is the case, than it is fixed. The reason that is relevant is because it means that the unique persona of your offspring exists in its potential form as a stable concept, as something that remains constant through its transitions in time.


It is irrelevant because the potential person has no identity, if you are defining it as the idea of a kid that exists before conception occurs.

This is just a repeating of your contrary position, not an argument.

A potential person is not a nebulous possibility. Possible and potential are not the same thing, especially in the way such is defined and used in the argument. A potential is something that WILL become actual so long as the process is not willfully distrupted, all things being equal. In contrast, a "nebulous possiblity" is one of a multitude of likely outcomes.


And we have gone over your willful dismissal of the fact that conception and pregnancy are not inevitable things regardless of intent.

And yes, it is nebulous. I am certain that I had no clear concept of my daughter having the identity she has now at the moment we were conceiving her, or before. Or even after, until she was born and we were getting to know her.

Logically, one-out-of-a-multitude-of-likely-outcomes" is not what we are talking about. The fact is, if you had willfully disrupted conception, your daughter, who would have otherwise existed, would have been made to not exist. You would have destroyed her actual existence preemptively by destroying her potential existence via your willful act. You would be acting as the Terminator in relation to John Connor, only with your own daughter,and willfully so, because the purpose of such an act is to make it so that he/she will not exist. That is the purpose of such contraceptive acts, to stop or to cause-to-cease the existence of those that would otherwise exist. If this is not the case, pregnancy prevention, generally, would be pointless.


Contraception stops the sperm from fertilising an egg.

The exact sperm which would fertilise the egg, and the identity of the person who comes from that, is exactly what you would describe as “one-out-of-a-multitude-of-likely-outcomes”.

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator


Yes. That is exactly how we feel when you do the same thing. Glad you caught up.
#14868017
ingliz wrote:Ease and cost? These are potential actual people we are talking about, not puppies.


You brought up "efficiency" (not me),which includes cost and ease. You argued that your unnatural technological means were more efficient, I demonstrated otherwise given conditions that are relevant to the definition of "efficiency."

Besides, "natural course of events" is an aspect of my definition in my OP pertaining to the circumstance of actualization; thus, none of this discussion really matters anyway because it is besides the point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is irrelevant because the potential person has no identity, if you are defining it as the idea of a kid that exists before conception occurs.


This is not an argument, and I have already demonstrated how concepts can have identities, so the boldness of your claims does not match the substance of your arguments to the contrary.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And we have gone over your willful dismissal of the fact that conception and pregnancy are not inevitable things regardless of intent.


Logically, the natural course of events, all things being equal, makes this so, you have made public temper-tantrums about how you don't like logical forms, but this does not make the case any less so.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And yes, it is nebulous. I am certain that I had no clear concept of my daughter having the identity she has now at the moment we were conceiving her, or before. Or even after, until she was born and we were getting to know her.


YOU don't have to have a clear concept in your mind, because the concept exists irrespective of such. the concept is not in your mind and has nothing to do with your thoughts or opinions on the matter, it is a logical concept, it is not an arbitrary idea, imaginary person, or an opinion. The Law of Identity, as a non-physical concept, exists irrespective of whether you are thinking of it or even understand it and it has both an identity and a reality. It does not matter whether you knew or thought about the content of your daughter as a potential person or unique essential qualities subsumed in such. When you were banging your wife, the potential person of your daughter existed and by not interfering with the natural process to stop such, her potential existence became an actual existence. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, this is a logical necessity we are discussing.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Contraception stops the sperm from fertilising an egg.

The exact sperm which would fertilise the egg, and the identity of the person who comes from that, is exactly what you would describe as “one-out-of-a-multitude-of-likely-outcomes”.


I am not speaking of any particular sperm, I made this clear in the OP and in several posts to several users. The argument is that your "sperm" in general, the specific sperm of which is immaterial to point of the argument, has implicit in its nature a potential person who's existence will transition into an actual life given the natural course of events. If you disrupt this process intentionally, you are intentionally changing the otherwise inevitable outcome, logically speaking.
#14868021
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is not an argument, and I have already demonstrated how concepts can have identities, so the boldness of your claims does not match the substance of your arguments to the contrary.


I am not saying concepts cannot have identities. I am saying that the particular concept that was the potential person of my kid did not have an identity, even if other concepts have one.

Logically, the natural course of events, all things being equal, makes this so, you have made public temper-tantrums about how you don't like logical forms, but this does not make the case any less so.


Pointing out that miscarriages happen is a temper tantrum? Lol.

Please note that using logical forms to dismiss miscarriages does not make it so that these things do not happen.

YOU don't have to have a clear concept in your mind, because the concept exists irrespective of such. the concept is not in your mind and has nothing to do with your thoughts or opinions on the matter, it is a logical concept, it is not an arbitrary idea, imaginary person, or an opinion. The Law of Identity, as a non-physical concept, exists irrespective of whether you are thinking of it or even understand it and it has both an identity and a reality. It does not matter whether you knew or thought about the content of your daughter as a potential person or unique essential qualities subsumed in such. When you were banging your wife, the potential person of your daughter existed and by not interfering with the natural process to stop such, her potential existence became an actual existence. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, this is a logical necessity we are discussing.


As far as I can tell, no, it does not exist. But feel free to prove that this concept exists somewhere out there and is somehow related to my kid.

I am not speaking of any particular sperm, I made this clear in the OP and in several posts to several users. The argument is that your "sperm" in general, the specific sperm of which is immaterial to point of the argument, has implicit in its nature a potential person who's existence will transition into an actual life given the natural course of events. If you disrupt this process intentionally, you are intentionally changing the otherwise inevitable outcome, logically speaking.


Then you are ignoring basic biology and your argument fails because of that.
#14868037
Victoribus Spolia wrote:"natural course of events"

If you don't give a toss how many of your potential actual people are killed in the "natural course of events", why are you making such a fuss when we choose to kill them?


:eh:
#14868057
ingliz wrote:If you don't give a toss how many of your potential actual people are killed in the "natural course of events", why are you making such a fuss when we choose to kill them?


same reason that people still care about murder and suicide even though death by natural causes represent 93% of the total deaths.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am saying that the particular concept that was the potential person of my kid did not have an identity, even if other concepts have one.


I have already shown how, under your own definition of identity, that it does. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Pointing out that miscarriages happen is a temper tantrum? Lol.


Pointing out anything that is already controlled for in the argument, yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that using logical forms to dismiss miscarriages does not make it so that these things do not happen.


I never argued to the contrary.

Pants-of-dog wrote: far as I can tell, no, it does not exist. But feel free to prove that this concept exists somewhere out there and is somehow related to my kid.


Your often insufficient powers mental prowess may "tell you" that such does not exist, but logically such must exist necessarily. I have proven this and you are practicing evasion, but the argument stands sufficient.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you are ignoring basic biology and your argument fails because of that.


No, I only discuss those aspects of biology that are relevant to the argument at hand. There are plenty of aspects of human reproductive biology that are not relevant to the logic of the matter. The argument stands as valid, you have not challenged it in the least. @B0ycey, was the only one so far to post a legitimate critique of the actual position that was not preemptively handled in the OP itself. His argument was the only original and serious challenge given thus far, even if he was too emotionally invested in the matter to pursue further debate on the points he gave....pity.....I guess i'm stuck repeating basic concepts with you.
#14868065
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I have already shown how, under your own definition of identity, that it does. It is up to you to prove otherwise.


If you think this is true, then you misunderstood my definition of identity.

Pointing out anything that is already controlled for in the argument, yes.

I never argued to the contrary.


Okay. Then I “had a temper tantrum” when I pointed out that your premises are incorrect because there are instances when they are simply wrong.

And you may be following proper forms of writing logical statements when you deliberately exclude all,these instacnes, but that does not magically mean they don’t happen.

Your often insufficient powers mental prowess may "tell you" that such does not exist, but logically such must exist necessarily. I have proven this and you are practicing evasion, but the argument stands sufficient.


It may be that I am a dullard, but that would then mean that you were unable to clearly communicate how this potential person has to exist in any way other than as an idea in someone’s head.

Apparently, it exists objectively as an idea somewhere in lalaland.

No, I only discuss those aspects of biology that are relevant to the argument at hand. There are plenty of aspects of human reproductive biology that are not relevant to the logic of the matter. The argument stands as valid, you have not challenged it in the least. @B0ycey, was the only one so far to post a legitimate critique of the actual position that was not preemptively handled in the OP itself. His argument was the only original and serious challenge given thus far, even if he was too emotionally invested in the matter to pursue further debate on the points he gave....pity.....I guess i'm stuck repeating basic concepts with you.


Feel free to ignore me.

Anyway, you are associating a specific identity to a potential person, the same identity that they have when they are actual physical beings.

If that is the case, then you have to deal with the fact that our identity is partly biological, which is in turn due to DNA, which will vary according to which sperm fertilises the egg.
#14868071
Victoribus Spolia wrote:same reason that people still care about murder and suicide even though death by natural causes represent 93% of the total deaths.

I believe abortion is equal to murder. But contraception to prevent pregnancy, I would not say is murder. However, I come from a Baptist religious background instead of Catholic. Do you think you have made any progress in convincing these liberals on here that at least abortion is murder?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 24
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]