Is Contraception Murder?

Victoribus Spolia

Introduction

Most have either seen or heard of the movie "The Terminator," in that movie the Terminator was sent back in time for the ultimate purpose of eliminating John Connor, of which the means was assassinating Sarah Connor (his mother). But answer me this: Would "The Terminator" have succeeded in eliminating John Connor if he had disguised himself as a gynecologist and implanted a permanent IUD (birth control device) in Sarah Connor? 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. If intentionally eliminating people is murder, then birth control must be regarded as a type of murder in the same way the Terminator's ultimate goal was to murder John Connor. If this is the case, then people who use birth control are no less nefarious in their intentions when practicing contraception than the Terminator, whether you call it murder or not, and that is a matter of simple logic as I shall now demonstrate.

The Pronatalism Master Argument

Syllogism One

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]

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).

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.

Further Thoughts for Clarification [Edited Addition]

Some people may wonder what this argument implies ethically (as my above argument is not an ethical argument per se, at least not in-and-of itself), and that would depend on which ethical school one subscribes to. At the very least, most deontological schools would be forced to admit that if potential-person-destroying is inseparably connected to actual-person-destroying by force of logic, then by necessary inference contraception would have to be regarded as unequivocally immoral so long as it by definition was anti-procreative (ipso facto). Both the deontological schools of Divine Command (e.g. orthodox Christianity), and the categorical imperative (Kantian altruism) therefore seem obligated to the thesis that contraception should be condemned as a deviant practice.

Now when it comes to consequentialist or teleological schools (utilitarianism, egoism, etc.) it seems that at the very least they would be forced to admit what they are actually permitting (actual person destroying). They would likewise have to admit that if they so choose to promote contraception that they must also justify it on their consequential grounds in the same way as justifying certain types of murder (that is, that murder "can" be justified if it is one's self-interest or promotes the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, all things being equal). For instance, whether or not these schools decided, by their own systems, to condone or condemn contraception is irrelevant to the fact that they must admit that it is qualitatively the same as actual-person-destroying (given my argument). Hence, contraception must be justified in these schools via the same arguments as any other acts used for the purpose of destroying life (i.e permissible abortion, murder, etc.). Now as a point of note, these schools (all of them) are forms of what might be called “empirical ethics” and should all be dismissed anyway since to infer obligation from observation is always a fallacy (as no necessary connection exists between “is“ and “ought”---see Hume on the naturalistic fallacy ); therefore, since empirical ethical schools are always fallacious one is left with deontology and we have already seen that the deontological schools must forbid contraception (if they still allow for logic, as many Christians seemed to have abandoned in favor of mere sentimentality or cultural relevance).

Now, before concluding this article, it must be made clear what is not meant by contraception and what is. 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").

T Clark

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y] — Victoribus Spolia

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
Not having sex whenever a fertile member of the opposite sex asks you to is Y
Having sexual relationship with your spouse or lover when they are unable to conceive is Y
For a man, not having sex with as many fertile women as you can is Y
For a woman, not getting pregnant as often as you can is Y
Being celibate is Y
Menstruation is Y
For children, not having sex as soon as you are fertile is Y

Just curiosity - Is this something you believe or are you just being a philosopher?

Added in an edit - 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.

BC

The last time I checked, murder means killing someone who actually, decidedly, and emphatically exists.

Your pronatalist argument is as weighty as the antinatalist argument that having children violates the rights of persons who did not exist. After all, if you didn't get the consent of the unborn to be conceived, their right to not exist has been violated.

You remind me of Anna in the King and I who sings...

A flock of sheep and you the only ram
No wonder you're the wonder of Siam. — Oscar Hammerstein II

BlueBanana

↪Bitter Crank

Does killing a sleeping person count as a murder? They don't have conscious and sentient mind at the time of the murder, so it's justifiable to make the claim that they don't exist, but that they only have potential to become into existence.

Victoribus Spolia

↪T Clark

1. I have added some "further thoughts" for clarification to my original posting of the thread. In essence, I am arguing that Y is modified/understood in terms of circumstance and human intentionality. Thus, if no women existed in the world, then jacking-off would not be potential person destroying (no Y could exist). Likewise, in the context of marriage, "Y" only exists, under the arrangement of the marriage contract, or when conception is ordinarily possible with one's wife. Hence, if a guy jacks off when his wife is fertile, that would be Y, but if he jacked off while she was already pregnant, it would not.

Hence, under my position, it is only an Intentionally Non-Procreative act,if the agent in question is practicing sexuality intentionally to avoid ordinary heterosexual practice, or intentionally preventing pregnancy with his spouse when such was possible. Thus, the position is fairly nuanced.

So, as much as I find Monty Pythons's skit hilarious, it does not apply to my position. My position is not that every sperm is sacred vitae actualis (actual life), but that sperm is, ordinarily (but not always), vitae potentialis (potential life).

I think my syllogism demonstrates this.

2. I will respond to some of your objections below. My specific commentary is also in bold.

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.

Hanover

It'd seem then under such logic that abstention would be murder because you're withholding the creation of life. You possess in your hands (so to speak) an awesome person creator, at attention, ready to erupt and make little ones. Holding your warrior back is to murder a whole army of potentials.

So I say to my brothers, go out, conquer, and bring me back a mighty litter. All else is murder!

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

I appreciate your response. I don't know that I've ever been offended by someone's beliefs. I consider dealing with you honorably as an opportunity to put my philosophical money where my philosophical mouth is.

Victoribus Spolia

↪Hanover

I addressed some of your issue (I think) in my response to T Clark....Otherwise, beautiful poetry.

Victoribus Spolia

↪T Clark

Thanks, I appreciate it.

BlueBanana

↪Victoribus Spolia

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?

Hanover

↪Victoribus Spolia

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't.

BC

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.

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

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.

May I direct your attention to a more suitable place for the discussion in question, this one, as we're dangerously drifting off-topic?

No, contraception is not murder. (And eating a banana isn't assault). The Terminator would be guilty of some sort of crime, but not murder. There's no legal precedent for anyone under such circumstances being convicted of murder. Anyone can call anything murder, but what matters is what counts as murder in a court of law. You could try to change what counts as murder in a court of law, but this is not the place to do so, and fortunately I think you wouldn't stand a chance. If you want to discuss whether it's right or wrong, then that's another kettle of fish, but I wish you people would stop with the hyperbolic misuse of the word "murder".

Hanover

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.

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

Suppose you weren't even there at the time. Suppose you were in fact round my place. Suppose I'd be willing to testify, for the right price...

unenlightened

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

What makes a course of events unnatural? Is doing it on a mattress unnatural?

javra

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

If we (to me, as bundles of unconscious awareness when in states of dreamless sleep) would not be present when we slept, even in dreamless sleep, then the alarm clock would never wake us up. We as conscious agents have this experience of awakening to external stimuli which, in conjunction with experience-founded inferences, justifies that we as total beings of body and mind are alive and well while sleeping. (There then is also the empirical evidence regarding others and the workings of the body-brain-mind that harmoniously supports the same conclusion.)

javra

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying) — Victoribus Spolia

I’m acquainted with the argument from “potential for being an integral human being”. As far as reasoning is concerned, the argument is logically flawed. My easiest way to illustrate this is by upholding this reasoning to encompass all human activity (and not only that of masturbation (the shame!!! :D ) and of contraception). 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.

If "murder" is to be upheld as term, then we mandatory murder potential persons in order to live harmonious, peaceful lives -- such via the act of defecating, or that of exercise wherein muscles are built through the damaging of current muscle cells, etc. This though nullifies the very significance of the term "murder".

The goal post can be then shifted to what “is natural” or “God-given”. The conclusions will remain the same, however.

To be transparent, I acknowledge that I am exceedingly pro-life-quality – which, then, entails that I’m also pro-choice. Yes, there is some responsibility on the part of both parents for the aborted fetus – but this pales in comparison to the responsibility of both parents in giving birth to an unwanted human being who then lives a life of misery with the sentience of a human being (and not that of a gamete). Hence, to me, the pro-life movement is, at core, unethical, regardless of how good its intentions might at times be. Again, I acknowledge my bias in this regard.

BlueBanana

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.

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

Right, but the premise I was replying to is that of potentiality. So, every single cell of every single person has the potential to become a person ... just as do all those gametes stuck in the rain coat. No different.

Edit: one can work with this argument even further, though: every time a man ejaculates sperm into a woman's uterus, most sperm die and only one of these merges with the woman's gamete. Hence, carrying on the same logic, to try to reproduce is to "murder" well over hundreds of thousands with there only being a likelihood of one potential person being conceived--which isn't to say they'll actually be birthed ("natural" things sometimes happen along the way). Then, ought one murder hundreds of thousands of (potential) persons so as to, maybe, bring forth one (potential) person into closer proximity to, maybe, someday being a person? Going by the offered reasoning, doing so would be rather unethical, right?

T Clark

You could try to change what counts as murder in a court of law — Sapientia

That's a good question, VS. How would you change the laws if you were king of the forest? How would homosexuals, fornicators, and people who use contraception be treated? 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.

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

We've been mostly talking about the moral implications of your beliefs, but haven't really gotten into the philosophical ones, in particular the concept of "potential person" and the idea that stopping the conception of a potential person is equivalent to killing an actual person. The first thing that comes to mind is a kind of moral quantum mechanics. Every time a event takes place that might have lead to the conception of an actual person, but doesn't, a potential person is killed. The multiverse is filled with shadow people and, to the extent that I am responsible for the event in question, I have killed the actual person they should have been.

How many potential people are there? As I see it, the number of potential people (PP) is the number of total people (TP) minus the number of actual people. PP = TP - AP. I guess TP is how many people would have been born if every woman in the world had gotten pregnant every time they could from the time they become fertile until menopause for the last 200,000 years.

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.

Baden

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

It's unlikely in this case as the whole premise is absurd. We all know contraception is not murder. Anyone in doubt can look the word up in a dictionary. So, if VS believes that people should be imprisoned or even executed for using contraception or wasting sperm in other ways, that's not sexist or racist or homophobic, just a bit silly. But who knows? Maybe this will lead onto a more interesting topic that is worthy of debate (though I doubt it). In any case, carry on...

Baden

(By the way, here's some more stuff that we don't need to debate but that anyone could make spurious arguments about:

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.)

BlueBanana

Eating a banana is assault — Baden

Are you saying it's not? Have my brethren no human rights?

(already mentioned) — Baden

Wait what. When. Where.

Baden

↪BlueBanana

Oh, sorry, insensitive of me. @Sapientia mentioned it earlier somewhere (though he stole the idea from me :) )

BlueBanana

Anyone can call anything murder, but what matters is what counts as murder in a court of law. — Sapientia

It doesn't matter in the slightest what counts as anything legally speaking - ethically speaking, of course. I treat practical issues as irrelevant to me.

(though he stole the idea from me :) ) — Baden

Not only a dictator planning a genocide of bananas, but a thief as well? Most horrific; a person in possession of such rotten morals truly ought to be hanged! Are our mods to take action?

Wait, he is one of the mods D: no one can help us, the end is upon us!

Banno

The ethics of putting the needs of "potential" humans over those of actual humans...

It deserves the derision it has received.

Lets be sure, the OP is a post hoc attempt to defend defunct christian ethics.

T Clark

↪Baden

Just to make it clear, I was being a smarty pants, but my point was serious. I am very interested in this discussion and I want to be careful not to run afoul. I've thought a lot about the role of moderators lately, and the more I think, the more sympathetic I am to your role, at least in principle.

It's unlikely in this case as the whole premise is absurd. We all know contraception is not murder. — Baden

Well...no. We all don't know that contraception isn't murder. I don't believe it is, but obviously, there are those who do.

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

You are being very unphilosophical and, dare I say, unreasonable, as in not using reason.

Victoribus Spolia

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

I do not understand the question as worded, could you rephrase?

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

I will address this according to section (of which there are three).

1. The first part sounds like a border-line ad-hominem accusation that reads like the preface to a condescending dismissal of anything I have to say, but perhaps that is just my misreading; however, i do find it an an odd critique of an argument that the argument is being used to defend the arguer's position. With with the exception of playing devil's advocate or presenting scientific hypotheticals, when isn't an argument used to justify the position one holds to?

The second part is a legitimate point in that the question of whether or not a pronatalist position is better served by a poly-amorous society over-and-against a monogamous society. Well, I did answer part of this in the response to @T Clark in my point against Polygamy. That is, unless the poly-amorous society could guarantee the 1:1 sex ratio, the situation wherein "Y" would be committed would increase rather than decrease (that is, more, potential persons would be prevented from transitioning into actual persons). However, if a poly-amorous society was somehow regulated to maintain a 1:1 sex ratio (which would be border-line monogamous structurally anyway), the next issue would be providing for the subsequent population. In an elaborate welfare state this may be possible, but that is a highly tenuous suggestion and whether or not mates would want to reproduce and rear offspring under such conditions is highly questionable.

Arguably, our primitive ancestors could have instituted such a system, but marriage in its traditional form seems to have been chosen and enforced because it was demonstrably the best to maximize the production, security, and well-being of offspring. Given the whole of human history, I have not seen any reason to yet doubt their conclusion.

2. I find it odd that a question in the philosophy forum would prompt me to respond with personal information, but this is the first year I have ever made more than $30,000.00 a year in my entire life (which is actually really good money around here), so I am not wealthy. I do not use public welfare, and we have lived quite comfortably as long as I have been married (which is since I was 19). But, I have worked in construction full-time nearly the entire time I was going to school while also having a family with the wife at home with the children. Of course, I work and repair my own vehicles, have bought cheap homes and repaired them to being livable, and have been debt free. I can still afford the little luxuries of life like nice suits, alcohol, tobacco, amazon prime, and several vacations a year....but self-sufficiency, which can be taught, is really how such a lifestyle is doable.

3. I have not criticized other people for not having children. Please demonstrate where I made such a claim to anyone on the Philosophy Forum? What I have done is presented an argument with implications for contraception and have told others that I do not practice it. That is not criticizing others, even if it inadvertently offends them. I presented a syllogism to be debated and presented certain moral implications. IF they are so obviously wrong, then they should be easily refuted without dismissals or critiques of my character being the main case against what I have posted.

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

I think the moral implications of my position can be deduced quite easily without my having to spell them out, perhaps that will "save my skin." If what I have defined is murder, and murder is a crime.....you fill in the blanks....I will not divulge what penalties or lack thereof I would suggest. ;)

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

I didn't always hold the views that I currently hold. I grew up in a non-religious home in a culturally christian area and subscribed to both Darwinian and Marxist conceptions of humanity. I was not always a pronatalist and in my first year of college wrote a defense of contraception against religious arguments to the contrary. Obviously, a lot has changed.

I am always open to plain reason, but the arguments have to be sound, not sentimental, and I am seeing A LOT of dismissals, mocking, red-herrings, and slippery slopes on this thread.

Is Contraception Murder?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions