Pants-of-dog wrote:Repeating your werid crap from another thread is pointless. I refuted in that thread.
No you didn't. You embarrassed yourself with your complete incompetence in debate and your lack of understanding as to how logic works.
Feel free to try again. Like I said, you want to make this an ethical debate, so lets have it.
Don't be a coward.
One Degree wrote:I enjoyed reading the logic, however it appears to be based upon accepting all semen is intended for procreation.
Not it doesn't that was qualified in the argument here:
Victoribus Spolia wrote: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.
This also follows given the definitions (please note sections in bold):
Victoribus Spolia wrote: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.
One Degree wrote:Since only a very small portion is actually used in procreation then it must be assumed the rest was not intended for procreation.
Which may be true, but that is not what my position is arguing.
The sperm is only relevant to the argument inasmuch as it is necessary in the actualization of potential persons.
One Degree wrote:If wasting of sperm is acceptable in attempts to procreate, then there is no reason to place value on sperm being produced not used to procreate.
This is not my position, my position would argue that the issue lies in the commitment to the battle, not how many casualties may result. Ultimately, potential persons, given a natural course of events, do not necessitate actualization by the contribution of 100% of one's sperm in a single ejaculation, but that is irrelevant as to whether the sex act was anti-procreative.
What makes it intentionally anti-procreative is if NO sperm were used for procreative purposes when such was ordinarily possible.
that act IS an intentionally anti-procreative act....a bit of goo squeezing out of pussy lips is not. They
are not logically the same thing.
One Degree wrote:Your logic would also make involuntary ejaculation a sin.
No it doesn't, because that is not an
intentionally anti-procreative act.