[Godstud]

We're off-topic, and not actually trolling.

moving on...

[Rancid]

I do not worship a false god. so I am set.

Praise Rancid!! Halleluyah!

We will both live peacefully in the kingdom of heaven.

Good to see my thread as been hijacked by trolls.

yes, Sunztu has trolled this thread into oblivion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Good to see my thread as been hijacked by trolls.

There is no significant change in the thread, since both conversations are equally silly.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is no significant change in the thread, since both conversations are equally silly.

Your irrelevant opinion as to your thoughts on the subject of the OP are noted.

But one must wonder, if its equally silly, why do you feel the need to keep debating the topic?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is relaxing.

Most discussions on this forum are politically significant and have impacts on people’s lives. This one refreshlingly does not.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is relaxing.

Most discussions on this forum are politically significant and have impacts on people’s lives. This one refreshlingly does not.

I find that claim quite odd as the relation between demographics and national destiny are pretty significant and well documented. Not to mention that not only myself, but several people I have influenced over the years, no longer practice contraception.

So you think something so incredibly practical as contraception is "politically insignificant" in your opinion, while discussing the esoteric ins and outs of Marx is politically significant?

I think we have different standards of significance my friend.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is almost no possibility of making contraception illegal, or of actually enforcing that law if it were illegal.

It is a non-issue.

If you wish to think your personal choices, and the personal choices of your friends, are politically significant to society, feel free.

[Suntzu]

There is almost no possibility of making contraception illegal, or of actually enforcing that law if it were illegal.

It is a non-issue.

If you wish to think your personal choices, and the personal choices of your friends, are politically significant to society, feel free.

This also applies to abortion. The abortion rate before Roe v Wade was about the same as after.

[Victoribus Spolia]

actual vs potential persons, the physical rather than conceptual sense of "entity" is required. Or is your whole argument just an equivocation fallacy? I was hoping not, but it is by far the most common fallacy in modern philosophy.

That is true in the abortion debate exclusively where fetuses are argued to be potential persons ipso facto, the contraception debate does not necessitate this and it is not equivocation for the subject of a proposition to be conceptual (and corresponding to physical) and the predicate to be physical in-itself in reference to "entities," the common aspect to the subject and predicate in my syllogism would not be the potential v actual aspects anyway, but "person," Thus, for there to be equivocation with both subject and predicate, I must be using "person" in an equivocal manner, or for there to be a general equivocation, I must be using my definitions inconsistently. Neither is true.

Likewise, potential v. actual assumes a distinction, potential person is conceptual, but has physical referents, which are the conditions/components necessary in which an actual person "becomes."

But the concept of murder only applies to actual persons, entities in the physical sense, not "corresponding" conceptual ones.

Yes, but its not the destruction of potential persons itself that constitutes the murder, but because potential persons are logically connected to actual ones; hence, potential person destroying is only murder because it is a preemptive action of actual-person destroying. (assuming a particular ethical definition of murder, which depends on your ethical school)

The caterpillar was a physical entity; but that is not what you seem to mean by "actual" in the case of persons.

The caterpillar is a potential-butterfly, and is potentially a particular butterfly. If you destroy the caterpillar, you likewise eliminate the particular butterfly it would have otherwise become. (note my stress on particular, I will be discussing that below).

I think it would be easier to understand an argument from logical analogy that had the claimed truth values.

Agreed. My bad.

No, because the negation does not conserve truth value, as I said before. Even if there is a non-apple that corresponds to every non-grape, there does not necessarily have to be a corresponding apple for every grape.

This would only be true if the correspondent was not particular. All grapes (every particular grape) are (corresponding to) All Apples (particular apples).

Thus if you eliminate a grape, you eliminate the particular apple to which it corresponds (not just any apple). This is also the point in using the terminator analogy at the start of the OP.

The Terminator's ultimate (teleological) goal was to kill the leader of the human resistance, retroactively, by eliminating his potentiality (in this case, his mother prior to his conception). My point, is that the Terminator could have accomplished this same goal by disguising himself as a Gynecologist and permanently sterilizing Sarah Connor before Kyle Reese could impregnate her.

In logical terms, in order to eliminate an actual person that would otherwise come into existence, one must eliminate the conditions of his potentiality. Thus, if you destroy a person's potential existence, you will as a consequence, destroy his actual existence (that he would otherwise have become) just as destroying a caterpillar would destroy the particular butterfly it would otherwise have become.

This is so common sense, I am shocked it had invoked so much confusion. The fact is, if your eliminate potentiality, you eliminate the actuality that otherwise would have been. The syllogism merely expresses this reality.

You'll have to do better than that.

Are you arguing that if I die, my wife cannot (in the future) imagine the life we could have had? Because she can.

Sure she can, but how does that "idea" in her head have any potentiality? (it doesn't) What physical referents does it correspond to, without which, the actual you in the future could not be? (it has none)

Once again, just because something is a logical concept does not put in on par with every chimera one can conjure up in his imagination.

Your wife's imagining what you would be like in the future is not the same as your potential-self. Your potential self assumes real potentiality and therefore has real physical conditions attached to it. Imagining something that cannot be or is impossible is completely different.

If you die right now, your potential-you is gone. It does not matter who "thinks" about what you might be like, those ideas or concepts are not connected to real conditions, potential persons are.

In the case of contraception, I can imagine what a child of mine would have been like had I not used a rubber, but that is not the same as the real potentiality that existed in the midst of intercourse, for during that moment of time, the physical conditions made the arising of an actual person a real potential. That potential-person was destroyed by the use of contraception and thus the corresponding actuality that otherwise could have been was likewise destroyed. Its that simple.

Actually, you are attempting to benefit from the confusion by pretending that potential people also have identities as I do.

Pure Presumption.

This disregards biology as you are assuming that a specific person will arise from a specific sexual union, which is incorrect. From any one sexual union, there are millions of possible specfic people, and they are all tied to the same physical objects.

The potentiality will always match the actual entities, which in the case of potential persons that are destroyed, is not known to us. We know that, controlling for extraneous circumstances (all things being equal), when conception is possible, coition will result in said conception. Whatever potential persons (including the number of such) exists under such conditions is not known (and it does not matter), but according to the logic of the case, its always at least one. So in contraception, at least one potential person and therefore at least one actual person is destroyed. This is because whatever particular or specific person that would have otherwise existed (which included their particular identity) was made to not exist because their potentiality was eliminated via contraception.

[Pants-of-dog]

So if not all concepts are the same, we can also agree that the potehtial me in the future is not the same as potnetial people as mentioned in the OP, since I have identity and they do not.

Or, to be more clear, there is no potential person that is intrinsically tied to any actual person.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So if not all concepts are the same, we can also agree that the potehtial me in the future is not the same as potnetial people as mentioned in the OP, since I have identity and they do not.

Or, to be more clear, there is no potential person that is intrinsically tied to any actual person.

I just argued in my response and I argued early in the thread, that potential persons have the identity implied in them of the actual person they would otherwise become, this is why they are corresponding. The Terminator killed Sarah Connor because the potential-person implicit there shared a common identity with the person that he would become. IF this identity was not common between the potentiality and actuality, then there would not be any guarantee to the Terminator that killing Sarah Connor would have resulted in the elminiation of John Connor because such was not necessarily the same person existing in potentiality at that time.

[Hong Wu]

The truth is that lots of shit is murder. This is why religions set standards impossible for most people, once upon a time only certain kinds of people were both able and inclined to write anything.

[Pants-of-dog]

I just argued in my response and I argued early in the thread, that potential persons have the identity implied in them of the actual person they would otherwise become, this is why they are corresponding.

Why do they have this identity? Magic? Because the actual person born from a sex act may have one of millions of possible identities. Is this one person associated with millions of potential people?

The Terminator killed Sarah Connor because the potential-person implicit there shared a common identity with the person that he would become. IF this identity was not common between the potentiality and actuality, then there would not be any guarantee to the Terminator that killing Sarah Connor would have resulted in the elminiation of John Connor because such was not necessarily the same person existing in potentiality at that time.

Again, time travel is not a thing. The identities from a time travel movie are not comparable to reality.

[Hindsite]

This also applies to abortion. The abortion rate before Roe v Wade was about the same as after.

Before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, data on abortion in the United States were scarce. In 1967, researchers ... concluded that a total of 800,000 induced (mostly illegal) abortions were performed nationally each year.

At about this time, the availability of legally induced abortion in the United States gradually increased, starting in Mississippi in 1966 and then in Colorado the following year.

Following the legalization of abortion in New York State in 1970 and in several other states between 1970 and 1973, the annual number of legally induced abortions rose dramatically, especially in New York City and California. For example, 586,760 legal abortions were performed in 1972 —more than 20 times the number reported three years earlier. Furthermore, in the few years after Roe v. Wade, the estimated number of illegal abortions gradually decreased. Thus, the initial increase in the number of legal abortions was likely due to the declining demand for illegal abortion services as legal abortion became available.

In deciding Roe v. Wade in January 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state abortion laws were unconstitutional, thereby legalizing induced abortion throughout the country. As a result, the number of legal abortions increased to almost 1.6 million in 1980 and continued at this level until the 1990s.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psr ... ears-later


Roe saw its highest approval ratings in the early 1990s, right around when the Supreme Court issued another decision on abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional. The decision had the lowest appeal in 2006, the same time that Congress outlawed a late-term abortion procedure that came to be known as "partial birth abortion."

Ever since the early 1980s, the number of doctors performing abortions has steadily declined. A number of factors likely contribute to this trend, including state-level abortion restrictions and a wave of violence against abortion providers in the 1990s, when five were killed. The decrease in abortion providers has correlated with a decrease in the rate of abortions.

A wave of abortion restrictions passed in 2011, followed by slightly fewer in 2012 and 2013. Roe provides widespread protections to elective abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. But in later rulings, the Supreme Court has allowed states to restrict access to abortion. Since them, states have increasingly done so. In 2011, states passed 92 laws restricting abortion access, more than double the restrictions passed in any other year. The number dropped to 43 in 2012 and then rose to 70 in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 9d01924ccf

[Godstud]

Yes, but let's remember Hindsite, that when they are not legal, they are not being reported. People try to show the divorce rate is high by the same methodology but it's actually been dropping steadily since the 70s, when it was first introduced(no fault).

Legal abortion with counseling and giving the mothers options, is the best tactic to combat abortion. Banning it only results in more harm. Planned Parenthood is about harm reduction, and providing options for people who want to have an abortion.

[Hindsite]

Yes, but let's remember Hindsite, that when they are not legal, they are not being reported. People try to show the divorce rate is high by the same methodology but it's actually been dropping steadily since the 70s, when it was first introduced(no fault).

Legal abortion with counseling and giving the mothers options, is the best tactic to combat abortion. Banning it only results in more harm. Planned Parenthood is about harm reduction, and providing options for people who want to have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood promote having abortions because they can make money selling baby body parts for research, etc.

Because the sale of human tissue or body parts is prohibited by federal law, the traffickers have worked out an arrangement to expedite the process from which they all benefit and still remain within current interpretations of the law. For instance, the harvesters receive the fetal material as a " donation" from the abortion clinic. In return, the clinic is paid a "site fee" for rental of lab space where technicians, employed by the harvesters, perform as many dissections as necessary to fill researcher manifests. The harvesters then "donate" the body parts to the researchers and, rather than pay the harvesters for the actual body parts, "donate" the cost of the retrieval (a service) via a formal price list.

The fiction is that under this mutually acceptable agreement, no laws are broken: No body parts from aborted fetuses are sold. In nearly all cases, the entire fetus is not needed. Rather, the fetus is dissected and the parts shipped to either the private corporation, university, or government agency where the research is being conducted. Any remaining skin, tissue, bones, or organs are ground up in the sink disposal or incinerated.

Brenda Bardsley, vice president of the Anatomic Gift Foundation, or AGF, tells Insight, "It's sad, but maybe it makes it [abortion] easier for us knowing that something good will come out of it." She adds, "We're doing our best in an unpleasant situation." Bardsley says the AGF's fetal-tissue retrieval accounts for "less than 10 percent of the company's business" and there are strict rules controlling when and under what conditions a technician may perform the procedures. "The decision to go ahead with the abortion," says Bardsley, "must be made before the woman is approached about donation, and we don't get access to the cadaver until the physician has firmly established death." Nearly 75 percent of the women who choose abortion agree to donate the fetal tissue, she says.

https://www.nrlc.org/archive/Baby_Parts/omeara.html

[Suntzu]

Before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, data on abortion in the United States were scarce. In 1967, researchers ... concluded that a total of 800,000 induced (mostly illegal) abortions were performed nationally each year.

At about this time, the availability of legally induced abortion in the United States gradually increased, starting in Mississippi in 1966 and then in Colorado the following year.

Following the legalization of abortion in New York State in 1970 and in several other states between 1970 and 1973, the annual number of legally induced abortions rose dramatically, especially in New York City and California. For example, 586,760 legal abortions were performed in 1972 —more than 20 times the number reported three years earlier. Furthermore, in the few years after Roe v. Wade, the estimated number of illegal abortions gradually decreased. Thus, the initial increase in the number of legal abortions was likely due to the declining demand for illegal abortion services as legal abortion became available.

In deciding Roe v. Wade in January 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state abortion laws were unconstitutional, thereby legalizing induced abortion throughout the country. As a result, the number of legal abortions increased to almost 1.6 million in 1980 and continued at this level until the 1990s.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psr ... ears-later


Roe saw its highest approval ratings in the early 1990s, right around when the Supreme Court issued another decision on abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional. The decision had the lowest appeal in 2006, the same time that Congress outlawed a late-term abortion procedure that came to be known as "partial birth abortion."

Ever since the early 1980s, the number of doctors performing abortions has steadily declined. A number of factors likely contribute to this trend, including state-level abortion restrictions and a wave of violence against abortion providers in the 1990s, when five were killed. The decrease in abortion providers has correlated with a decrease in the rate of abortions.

A wave of abortion restrictions passed in 2011, followed by slightly fewer in 2012 and 2013. Roe provides widespread protections to elective abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. But in later rulings, the Supreme Court has allowed states to restrict access to abortion. Since them, states have increasingly done so. In 2011, states passed 92 laws restricting abortion access, more than double the restrictions passed in any other year. The number dropped to 43 in 2012 and then rose to 70 in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 9d01924ccf

"•In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States"

I'm guess the increase is about proportional to the population increase.

[Hindsite]

"•In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States"

I'm guess the increase is about proportional to the population increase.

That is less than the approximate 1.6 million abortions per year of the 1980s.
There are more methods of contraception today too, and that may be another factor to consider.

[Godstud]

Better education. More birth control. more available options to young mothers. All these things can contribute to lower abortion rates, which is what we should be striving for.

[snapdragon]

http://allthatsinteresting.com/planned-parenthood-myths

I can't believe some people are still peddling the crap about planned parenthood pushing abortions to make money.

Read the above link.