Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y] — Victoribus Spolia
A flock of sheep and you the only ram
No wonder you're the wonder of Siam. — Oscar Hammerstein II
Well...., yeah....., No. By your logic, not only all X is Y, also all Z is Y, where Z is not having sex when you are able and fertile.
For males, masturbation is Y. [Only in certain circumstances, I would argue teenagers who are prevented from marrying or having a relationship are a toss-up, jerking-off to prevent the need of having to enter a relationship when it is theoretically possible would be Y, but jacking off on your wife's tits while she was pregnant or getting a blowjob while she was on the rag would not be Y, but doing such things during those time's when she was able to get pregnant would be Y].
Not having sex whenever a fertile member of the opposite sex asks you to is Y. [In the case of a society not conditioned by the regulation of procreation through contractual arrangement (marriage), then yes I agree. Otherwise, the procreative relationship is secured for the benefit of those children's guaranteed survival through marriage, but remember most early societies, including Christian and OT laws, require that premarital sex be remedied by forcible marriage.]
Having sexual relationship with your spouse or lover when they are unable to conceive is Y [False, that is not intentionally non-procreative for potential life does not exist in such circumstances]
For a man, not having sex with as many fertile women as you can is Y. [Actually, the sex ratio between men and women is almost universally 1:1, so for one man to mate with as many women as possible would invariably force other men into a situation of Y, so monogamy is the only moral option collectively].
For a woman, not getting pregnant as often as you can is Y [Correct.]
Being celibate is Y [There may be exceptions here, but generally speaking, yes you are correct.]
Menstruation is Y [No, it is not intentional and unfertilized eggs and uterine lining are not potential life at those times.]
For children, not having sex as soon as you are fertile is Y . [This also depends, circumstantial conditions of society set up contractual relationships to guarantee the survival of offspring that offset the intentional aspect, but generally speaking the principle would imply that the earlier the viable marriage the more preferable it is.]
— T Clark
I see from your postings in "What is the philosophy behind bringing a child to this world?" that you are serious. I didn't mean to be condescending. I can see how important it is to you. I do not share your beliefs. — T Clark
Well, almost no one shares my beliefs, I am a Berkeleyan Immaterialist, A Nietzschean Will-to-Power guy, A Trinitarian Theist, Monarchist, Imperialist, etc....I do not expect people to share my beliefs...but I don't find people's shock to be condescending or offensive, I am almost beyond offense. — Victoribus Spolia
Does killing a sleeping person count as a murder? — BlueBanana
Killing a sleeping person is eminently murderous. You'll hang for doing so.
I don't know about you, but I don't stop existing when I sleep. — Bitter Crank
no legal precedent for anyone under such circumstances being convicted of murder. — Sapientia
Alright fair enough. Suppose I duct taped someone's mouth shut just to keep him quiet, and then I started watching South Park for a couple of hours and didn't remember about the guy until I smelled the pizza burning, and I was like "oh shit," and I couldn't get him to respond, so I started to bury him, and he started fighting like a mother fucker, but I finally got him down. Is that murder? I sorta need to know. — Hanover
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 — Victoribus Spolia
How do you know? Your body does not, true, and your vital functions remain stable, but what about your mind? Do you have experiences of it existing while you're unconscious? There is no self awareness to eliminate if you're not sentient at that moment. — BlueBanana
Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying) — Victoribus Spolia
We, today, hold the ability to clone a human being from any nucleus-endowed human cell (the details to this do not matter). Because each of my somatic cells holds the potential for becoming an “integral human being” (the details to what this legally is do not matter) I then, to use your terminology, commit mass-murder (why not even genocides) every time I use the restroom to defecate. — javra
Nice try, but we do not have the ability to clone every single cell of every single person so the argument has a bit of a gap there, as we can afford disposing of some extra cells and still clone as many people as we have the capability of. — BlueBanana
You could try to change what counts as murder in a court of law — Sapientia
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. — Victoribus Spolia
You should probably be careful what you write, or those who are actually kings of the forest, at least on this forum, will shut us down. — T Clark
Anyone can call anything murder, but what matters is what counts as murder in a court of law. — Sapientia
(though he stole the idea from me :) ) — Baden
It's unlikely in this case as the whole premise is absurd. We all know contraception is not murder. — Baden
Eating a banana is assault (already mentioned)
Vegetables are animals
Human faeces contains intelligence and should have rights
And so on...The list is endless.) — Baden
How do you reach the conclusion that respecting marriage, even a non-existent one by avoiding premarital sex, is more important than not murdering people? — BlueBanana
Well, it all strikes me as a rationalization to support your personal moral imperative to have as many kids with your wife as possible. It is just as likely (in fact more so) that there will be more children if we abandoned traditional marital norms and normalized sexual free for alls, making certain no fertile female is unimpregnated.
I realize that there is insufficient wealth to care for all these children as we would wish, but the same holds true for your situation unless you are incredibly wealthy. I expect your community can provide for you if you lack the resources, but I don't believe it could if all your neighbors did as you are.
None of this is to be taken as a criticism of your desire to have a large family, but only as a response to your criticism that others don' — Hanover
You should probably be careful what you write, or those who are actually kings of the forest, at least on this forum, will shut us down. — T Clark
I'm not trying, I wouldn't want, and I know I couldn't if I wanted to talk you out of your beliefs. I really running through this for myself. I feel a sense of responsibility to try to put myself in the conceptual shoes of people I disagree with. It's a way of showing respect. It is also at the heart of what it means to practice reason. I feel as if I've fulfilled that responsibility with you. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.