Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The Death Blow to Pro-Life?

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 3:47:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you travel back in time, you're preventing an actual person that currently exists from existing. If you interrupt sex in the present to prevent a future person from existing, you're only preventing a potential person from existing. In the 2nd case, the future doesn't exist yet, so the potential person never actually exists, while in the 1st case, the person existed. To me, there seems to be a difference between a potential person in the present and the past potential for of a presently existing person.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:30:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a death blow to non-religious arguments against abortion. But we all know that potentiality arguments are just a smokescreen for the real justification - that fetus' have souls.
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:53:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

as such is an impossibility it becomes a non issue. People will believe as they will or disbelieve, despite so called logic.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 6:16:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

Killing babies(outside the womb little people that is) is not cool.
Killing 7th month old babies is not cool.

7 month old babies, in all relevant ways = 7th month fetuses

so.... Killing 7th month fetuses is not cool.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 6:23:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 6:16:26 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

Killing babies(outside the womb little people that is) is not cool.
Killing 7th month old babies is not cool.

7 month old babies, in all relevant ways = 7th month fetuses

so.... Killing 7th month fetuses is not cool.

now... Why killing 7th month babies isn't cool is perhaps a matter which merits explanation of itself.. But, similar to "having to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder"... one would imagine Most 'pro-choice' people would choose to distance themselves from more straightforward baby-killers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:47:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

Well, given the circumstances, yeah, it is. However, it's not an abortion. In other words, it's not the murder of a person while they're still developing in their mother's womb, as viviparous animals do. It's the intentional prevention of a person's life, which I'm sure would be murder of a different kind, given it were possible to rewind or move faster than time.

I'm sure if humans were marsupials, this question would be a lot clearer. The assertion that an embryo or fetus isn't alive is preposterous. The assertion that they're a single-celled organism is likewise, preposterous. It suggests an ignorance in the subject.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pro-lifers argue from the perspective that it is only a life once the sperm and the ovum fertilize each other and create a zygote. The sperm by itself or the ovum by itself should not be given the right to life. Only when they connect, does the human start to form.

No, masturbating is not murder because the sperm and the ovum have never connected in the first place.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 11:19:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:34:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Pro-lifers argue from the perspective that it is only a life once the sperm and the ovum fertilize each other and create a zygote. The sperm by itself or the ovum by itself should not be given the right to life. Only when they connect, does the human start to form.

No, masturbating is not murder because the sperm and the ovum have never connected in the first place.

The argument that "it's alive" has typically been replaced with "it's a potential person" because if we can't kill "alive" things then we cannot kill animals.

@Ren

That was an interesting point about marsupials. I never thought about it that way.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Nome
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 3:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abortion is not seen as murder because of any reasoned principle. It is an emotional attachment. In a similar way that it may be illegal to kill a dog but not other animals. There is nothing special about a dog other than our emotional attachment to the idea of a dog.

Then again, all arguments have their foundation in emotion.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

I don't think you understand the pro-life position at all.

The pro-life position is that since the unborn are living human organisms from fertilization (which is supported by science), and we are the same entity that we were in the womb, then if a morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone outside the womb, a morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone inside the womb. If you can't kill someone outside the womb for a reason, then you can't kill someone inside the womb for the same reason. (For example, we would never allow someone to kill their two-year-old child because she becomes too expensive -- so killing an unborn human due to poverty is wrong, as well.)

That being said, masturbation is not mass murder because sperm (and eggs, and skin cells, and hair, etc.) are parts of a human's body. You are making an elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. Sperm exist to pass on genetic material to a new human organism. They are simply the part of a larger organism. But the unborn from fertilization are a unique human organism; each part of the organism works together for the good of the whole organism.

So no, this isn't the death blow to pro-life. And after ten+ years of research, I can state with almost complete certainty that the best arguments and evidence support the pro-life side. :)
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:18:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

Forgot to add, that no, we don't see the unborn as "potential" humans. They are potential toddlers, but actual humans. We also argue that personhood should be established at birth. They are actual persons, not potential persons (although pro-lifers generally hate to use that term, since "person" is a legal term which has been used to legally discriminate against groups of humans in the past).
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 8:18:33 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/3/2012 3:39:10 AM, bluesteel wrote:
One key argument that Pro-Lifers make is that there is something special about interrupting a fetus' potential once it is formed that is different from interrupting its potential from before it is formed. They need to avoid the absurdity that masturbation is murder. So they argue that it is certain that a fetus will become a person, but uncertain that anything else will.

However, consider the following thought experiment. We all know that you (my dear reader) are alive with absolute certainty. If we travel back in time (in our theoretical time machine) to 9 months before your birth, and prevent your parents from having coitus, have we committed murder? Is coitus interruptus murder?

Forgot to add, that no, we don't see the unborn as "potential" humans. They are potential toddlers, but actual humans. We also argue that personhood should be established at birth. They are actual persons, not potential persons (although pro-lifers generally hate to use that term, since "person" is a legal term which has been used to legally discriminate against groups of humans in the past).

D'oh! I meant that personhood should be established at fertilization, when the new organism comes into existence. Embarrassing mistake, but that's what I get for not proofreading.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 6:20:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 3:47:45 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
If you travel back in time, you're preventing an actual person that currently exists from existing. If you interrupt sex in the present to prevent a future person from existing, you're only preventing a potential person from existing. In the 2nd case, the future doesn't exist yet, so the potential person never actually exists, while in the 1st case, the person existed. To me, there seems to be a difference between a potential person in the present and the past potential for of a presently existing person.

The 1st case would be impossible due to that if you were to go back in time to prevent an actual person from existing that currently exists, then there would be no need for you to go back in time in the first place and thus would result in a time paradox.
turn down for h'what
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 9:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 6:20:34 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 7/3/2012 3:47:45 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
If you travel back in time, you're preventing an actual person that currently exists from existing. If you interrupt sex in the present to prevent a future person from existing, you're only preventing a potential person from existing. In the 2nd case, the future doesn't exist yet, so the potential person never actually exists, while in the 1st case, the person existed. To me, there seems to be a difference between a potential person in the present and the past potential for of a presently existing person.

The 1st case would be impossible due to that if you were to go back in time to prevent an actual person from existing that currently exists, then there would be no need for you to go back in time in the first place and thus would result in a time paradox.

Unless you accept the multiverse theory, which resolves the grandfather paradox, in that if you killed this person, you would have created a new timeline in which you went back in time to kill that person and you would now exist in that timeline.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, as I don't actually accept the multiverse theory.