|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:30 PM |
|
|
@Doomforge
Quote:
That's really far fetched. We can go to the extreme and say, every second you waste by not having sex, you're denying lives.
It's a style of argument called extrapolating to the absurd (in latin, reductio ad absurdum). The idea is that if an argument is completely logical, it should hold even under extrapolation to extreme limits. If such extrapolation leads to an absurd (nonsense) conclusion, then the argument is fundamentally illogical. Which your argument is, because extrapolation of your premise leads to the absurd conclusion that two dating people should not be allowed to break up due to the future consequence of a potential life being prevented.
However, if you don't like that style of argument, I can attack your premise on other grounds. For instance:
Quote:
Taking a pill, on the other hand, directly interferes with the process that has already been started by sex.
It denies something that would happen for sure.
First, taking the pill occurs long before "the process" has been started by sex. A minor quibble, perhaps, but trust me, the temporal problems with your argument's logic get much worse.
Your argument fails essentially because of probability.
Let's start with the fact that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between people having sex and a child 9 months later. In fact, having sex has a pretty low probability of conception. Even if you assume that the probability of fertilization (and eventual gestation to maturity) is unity if a sperm and an egg meet, an egg is only available for fertilization for a few days out of every menstrual cycle. So the probability of conception for a random sexual encounter is at best in the vicinity of 20%. In actuality, it's quite a bit lower. Therefore, birth control does not "deny something that would happen for sure". It denies something that already has a low chance of occurring.
Therefore, even if I agree with you that contraception is immoral (because of the reasons you specify) in the event that the probability of conception/gestation/birth is unity, we can't say unilaterally that contraception is immoral because only a fraction of sexual encounters will lead to conception. Certainly I don't think you have grounds to argue that it is immoral to wear, for instance, a condom in a case where conception is impossible anyway (a sterile couple, say). And of course we have no method to determine, a priori, which encounters would otherwise lead to conception and which would not. If we had such a method that would render your argument applicable, then there'd be no need for contraception in the first place, which would also render your argument unnecessary.
So let me sum that up for you in easy language. We really have two possibilities for a given (future) sexual encounter: either conception occurs or it doesn't. We'll assume that if conception occurs, child is born. Here's how I can easily show how your argument doesn't work in either case.
In the event that you COULD determine a priori whether conception would happen for a future sexual encounter, your argument is useless because the point in that case is moot. You don't need contraception if you can predict the future.
In the event that you COULD NOT determine a priori whether conception would happen for a future sexual encounter, your argument is self-contradictory. You argue that undertaking an action (contraception) is immoral because it prevents an event from occuring. However, without that action, the event is still not certain to occur. By the argument in question, the action (contraception) is not immortal in the case of the event not occuring, and therefore the action of contraception cannot be immoral at all times, which contradicts the original (general) argument that contraception is immoral.
Of course, you could modify your argument to be that contraception is immoral for the case where conception is certain to occur, but insofar as you cannot predict the future, that modified argument would be, again, useless because it can't be applied generally to human action, which any code of ethics must.
Beyond that, we can use the additional argument that not all contraceptive methods are active. For instance, some people use such (rather ineffectual) passive contraceptive methods as withdrawl or rhythm. If you maintain that contraception is immoral for the reason that it "prevents life", then you must also maintain that the cessation of intercourse immediately before, well, you know, is immoral. Likewise, you must maintain that consciously planning intercourse around a woman's menstrual cycle is also immoral (in which case we must make the additional rather absurd conclusion that it's only moral to have sexual intercourse at random times). We can also go with the abstinence contraceptive method, which would be an extreme argument, but I don't think it's necessary at this point. Again, these are reductio ad absurdum arguments, but they are nevertheless quite relevant given the framing of your argument.
Quote:
Abortion does the same. The only difference is that it stops something "one step further". but with the same outcome.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll use this quote to reinforce what I wrote above. Again even if we assume that probability of gestation is unity after conception, you cannot say that the outcomes of the two scenarios are identical. In this case, we could say that abortion changes the outcome from child to no child with certainty (in fact, you can't, because the probability of gestation isn't even certain, but that's beside the point). However, as I've shown above, the outcome of sex without contraception is not certain to be gestation. There are two possible outcomes. Therefore the results of abortion and contraception do NOT have the same outcome at all. Again, your argument does not work.
Quote:
You deliberately prevent a life from being formed by contraception, and that's nothing to debate about, since it's rather obvious.
It's not obvious at all. There's no certainty of life without contraception. You're not "certainly" preventing anything. (And while we're at it, contraception is not 100% effective either, so even if we ignore all the other flaws in your argument's logic, here's another one.)
Your argument essentially is a black and white thinking fallacy. Note that I'm not saying I've shown that contraception is morally right. I'm saying that you need a new argument to show logically that contraception is morally wrong.
Quote:
Why is it socially accepted then, and abortion is not? Because people want to have lots and lots of sex, and morality suddenly gets unimportant because of the overwhelming pleasure? And one step forward, it suddenly makes a big return.
I'm not sure I accept your assertion that abortion is not socially accepted and contraception is. This is another case of black and white thinking. Certainly more people accept contraception than abortion, probably because there's even less chance of finding a good logical argument against the former than the latter.
Quote:
I never said it's a woman's problem: I said that I don't have full rights to mouth about it. It's like women talking about erection. Something they know about, seen, experienced, but well, they don't really know how it feels to be a man.
How pregnancy/birth feels is not even close to the biggest issue with abortion. I consider a man's viewpoint on the matter equally important to a woman's. You can't excuse a man just from a simple standpoint of anatomy.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
|
Stam Cell stuff is great. I would love to design my child but I still want to feel like its my kid.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:10 AM |
|
|
This isn't a video game 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:12 AM |
|
|
I agree on both 3 both can collaborate on wellfare on mankind despite all that the detractors say, with abortion and contraception we keep population down preventing overgrowth, and stem cell will allow to completely restore the human body and mind (brain damage I mean not altering the memories or such) if your confined to a wheelchair Woulndt you want to be walikng again? with some stem cell research doctors can restore your spine or muscles and make you walk again or in case of loosing a leg or an arm.
side note A fetus grows a brain at 6 weeks of conception so an abortion done before that is not murder at all. a proper dose of sexual education would do good to and as a side effect it will also lower aids infections.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
if your confined to a wheelchair Woulndt you want to be walikng again?
at what cost?Quote:
side note A fetus grows a brain at 6 weeks of conception so an abortion done before that is not murder at all.
what has the brain got to do with it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Our brain is what makes us us.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
if your confined to a wheelchair Woulndt you want to be walikng again?
at what cost?Quote:
side note A fetus grows a brain at 6 weeks of conception so an abortion done before that is not murder at all.
what has the brain got to do with it?
The cost: a bunch of human cells.
if something doesnt have a brain it has no self conscience therefore aborting before that is not killing.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The cost: a bunch of human cells.
The cost of killing a full-sized human: a "bunch" of human cells too.
you're no more than a bunch of cells too.
Quote:
if something doesnt have a brain it has no self conscience therefore aborting before that is not killing.
nah.
how do you think this thread got so many pages? You seriously think we didn't debate this kinda obvious fact?
Here's something. A person in coma has no self-conscience. Killing them is ok too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A person in coma has no self-conscience. Killing them is ok too.
And, of course, you will remember my response to that. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The cost: a bunch of human cells.
The cost of killing a full-sized human: a "bunch" of human cells too.
you're no more than a bunch of cells too.
Quote:
if something doesnt have a brain it has no self conscience therefore aborting before that is not killing.
nah.
how do you think this thread got so many pages? You seriously think we didn't debate this kinda obvious fact?
Here's something. A person in coma has no self-conscience. Killing them is ok too.
A person in coma with hopes of waking up I wouldne apply euthanasia second AN EMBRION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING! is like saying a buncha of bricks wood cemant and iron is a house, it need some structure organs to be considered such! ¿even so making a copy of someone to make tissue using an unfertilized egg-cell is wrong? you need some help
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A person in coma with hopes of waking up I wouldne apply euthanasia
a fetus will "wake up" after 9 months too.Quote:
second AN EMBRION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!
Why not? It has human DNA. It has human cells. Why isn't it human?
be more specific in your claims.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
A person in coma with hopes of waking up I wouldne apply euthanasia
a fetus will "wake up" after 9 months too.Quote:
second AN EMBRION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!
Why not? It has human DNA. It has human cells. Why isn't it human?
be more specific in your claims.
I said after 6 weeks of pregnanacy I disagree with abortion (READ!!!!!!!!!) DNA is just a blueprint, a blueprint is just the instructions to make it, NOT A COMPLETE PERSON!!!!! would you consider te rests a soldier after a granade exploded on its face? it has human dna yes but he has no self conscience! he lost it after the granade splattered its brain.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I said after 6 weeks of pregnanacy I disagree with abortion (READ!!!!!!!!!) DNA is just a blueprint, a blueprint is just the instructions to make it, NOT A COMPLETE PERSON!!!!!
What's a "complete person"? A certain number of cells? What about mutants or people with disabilities?Quote:
would you consider te rests a soldier after a granade exploded on its face?
Those rests won't ever "wake up" again. Actually.Quote:
it has human dna yes but he has no self conscience! he lost it after the granade splattered its brain.
why do you repeat the self-conscience nonsense when I already addressed it before with people in comas and fetuses being in the same way?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
smvuy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:51 AM |
|
|
because if you dont have self conscience you cannot feel and if you dont feel you are vegetative and unless you got hopes o getting back to conscience youre virtually dead, simple.
A complete person is something that at least has a mind something that has the capabilty IN THAT EXACT MOMENT OF TIME of self-conscience, ¿Would you consider a person a baby born without a brain?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 02:54 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 03:02, 09 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
because if you dont have self conscience you cannot feel and if you dont feel you are vegetative and unless you got hopes o getting back to conscience youre virtually dead, simple.
You know what? I addressed this TWICE with YOU. Are you even reading what I say?
A person in coma is a vegetable that will "wake up" later. Let's say 9 months for analogy purposes.
A fetus is a 'vegetable' that will "wake up" too, after 9 months.
Quote:
A complete person is something that at least has a mind something that has the capabilty IN THAT EXACT MOMENT OF TIME of self-conscience, ¿Would you consider a person a baby born without a brain?
if that baby isn't dead and doesn't decompose, I would call it a mutant. Still a person though (even if without a brain, it means it has a different DNA than a human)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 03:15 AM |
|
|
I am opposed to stem cell research that involves the death of a fertilized egg. I am not opposed to contraception that prevents an egg from being fertilized.
I am opposed to abortion both on religious and scientific grounds. I will not present my religious opposition to abortion at this time.
Neither an egg nor a sperm is a human life. An egg united with a sperm results in a human life. Both provide half of the chromosomes.
When a sperm penetrates an egg conception (fertilization) occurs. Changes begin to happen on the surface of the egg immediately that prevent other sperm from penetrating the egg. At the moment of conception fertilization is complete. The gender of the child has been determined. A new human life has come into being.
The fertilized egg begins dividing rapidly into multiple cells. It takes several days to reach the uterus.where it attaches to the lining.. The cells continue to divide. It takes several weeks for hormone levels to get high enough to be detected in a pregnancy test.
If you were to sample the fetus you would find unique human DNA. This tells you that the fetus is inside the mother but not a part of the mother The mother has one DNA structure the fetus another.. The fetus is a unique human life.
The fetus will eventually be born and grow into an adult human being unless a tragedy occurs.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. Murder.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 03:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A person in coma is a vegetable that will "wake up" later. Let's say 9 months for analogy purposes.
A fetus is a 'vegetable' that will "wake up" too, after 9 months.
The difference is that the person in a coma was a normal person before whatever caused him to get into the coma. The foetus didn't exist before his "coma".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Corribus,
Quote:
you waste by not having sex, you're denying lives.
It's a style of argument called extrapolating to the absurd (in latin, reductio ad absurdum). The idea is that if an argument is completely logical, it should hold even under extrapolation to extreme limits. If such extrapolation leads to an absurd (nonsense) conclusion, then the argument is fundamentally illogical. Which your argument is, because extrapolation of your premise leads to the absurd conclusion that two dating people should not be allowed to break up due to the future consequence of a potential life being prevented.
Actually, most of the things can be extrapolated to the absurd. Meaning, should we dump all our morals? Most are ambiguous in extreme situations. Perhaps that's unrelated, but do you remember the problem which was discovered by utilitarians? That you're the one responsible for a ship, and carry a few people on board, only you can steer it. It sinks, but it will not if you dump someone overboard. Now the choice was, dump a random guy and let the crew survive, or be chivalrous and let all die. BOth options in such extreme case sucked by our morality. Think of it, for example first option justifies killing people for greater good, which could also be extended further later into - say - justify killing a millionare to give his cash to 1000 beggars, does it mean that - if you picked that option - it's ok to kill people for greater good? By your "rule of absurd", "thou shalt not murder" is POINTLESS because of precisely this situation.
And we all know it isn't.
While this is not perfectly related, what am I saying is: Your thesis may apply to scientific research but you can't apply it to something as subjective and undetermined as morals. Sorry.
Quote:
First, taking the pill occurs long before "the process" has been started by sex. A minor quibble, perhaps, but trust me, the temporal problems with your argument's logic get much worse.
Exchange pill with a condom then, whatever - it's nitpicking.
Quote:
Your argument fails essentially because of probability.
I know it would come to this. Sorry, but there is also not a 1 to 1 correlation that an impregnated woman will give birth. Will we argue that we shouldn't do abortions because birth has sucess ratio of 95% (random number) while conceiving after a sex has a success ratio of 43% (another random number) ? Should we justify ANYTHING because it has lower possibility, but same effect?
Quote:
Let's start with the fact that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between people having sex and a child 9 months later. In fact, having sex has a pretty low probability of conception.
Exactly what I talked about earlier.
Quote:
Even if you assume that the probability of fertilization (and eventual gestation to maturity) is unity if a sperm and an egg meet, an egg is only available for fertilization for a few days out of every menstrual cycle. So the probability of conception for a random sexual encounter is at best in the vicinity of 20%. In actuality, it's quite a bit lower. Therefore, birth control does not "deny something that would happen for sure". It denies something that already has a low chance of occurring.
you talk about one time friend, I talk about total time. By simple calculus of probability, if something has a 20% chance of occuring, but is repeated 10000 times, the actual chance of a life denied will be most likely higher than the chance of succesful birth in the end.
PS. I know the mechanics, thank you very much. Oh, did you know that even after fertilization, the zygote may be still "naturally aborted" which often happens at least a couple times before the zygote gets nested in uterus?
Following the logic given in your post, we can justify abortion, with the success rate of zygote getting nested in uterus around, idk, 20% (random number).
Quote:
Therefore, even if I agree with you that contraception is immoral (because of the reasons you specify) in the event that the probability of conception/gestation/birth is unity, we can't say unilaterally that contraception is immoral because only a fraction of sexual encounters will lead to conception.
100% in the long run.
Look at it this way:
stabbing someone in neck has, say, 99% chance of instantly killing someone
stabbing someone in, idk, leg has 10% chance
And let's say, following the logic you presented here, someone bans stabbing in neck but stabbing in leg is allowed (stupid example but I hope you get what I want to say here)
Is there ANY _rational_ difference between stabbing in the neck once and stabbing in the leg 10000 times (or whatever number needed to reach 99% chance of killing someone, too lazy to do the math atm)?
Should stabbing in leg be more socially accepted because it causes less damage when used a single time?
If it does, nothing prevents you from repeating it up to the point when it's more lethal than stabbing someone in the neck once.
Thus, it's pointless to ban stabbing in neck because you can achieve the same results by repeating the "allowed" action XXX times. Which makes me think both should be banned, and a single probability should NOT be used as justifier.
Which means, contraception STILL has the SAME effect as abortion if you repeat it as people do... no, actually, it's more severe.
Quote:
So let me sum that up for you in easy language. We really have two possibilities for a given (future) sexual encounter: either conception occurs or it doesn't. We'll assume that if conception occurs, child is born. Here's how I can easily show how your argument doesn't work in either case.
In the event that you COULD determine a priori whether conception would happen for a future sexual encounter, your argument is useless because the point in that case is moot. You don't need contraception if you can predict the future.
As I mentioned before: you're going to simplify it to numbers, and you can't fight morals with numbers. Because the more "global" logic you want to apply here, the more you ignore the rare causes. I hope you know what I mean.
Also, giving birth is not 100% either, so your logic is useless here unless you, again, want to argue about "which is higher/lower is better" - numbers shouldn't have any real use in morality.
Again, if I hit you with 1% damage factor, is it better than if I hit you with 50% damage factor? Going by math logic, it is. Going by morality, hitting is bad overall, and it's not necessary to sink into subject and determine the worse thing: both are bad, and "lesser evil" and "greater evil"... well, we won't go there in this discussion, will we?
Long story short: whether you divide evil on lesser and greater, OR think evil is evil, no matter of severity is your call. Again, you can't justify morality with maths, and that makes your argument bad, even if I obviously agree with the logic you present (math wise.)
I disagree on moral basis, though.
Quote:
Of course, you could modify your argument to be that contraception is immoral for the case where conception is certain to occur, but insofar as you cannot predict the future, that modified argument would be, again, useless because it can't be applied generally to human action, which any code of ethics must.
By doing so, you justify ANYTHING that doesn't have a 100% success rate. Like attacking someone with 50% probability of killing him. What logic is this - that you couldn't predict the future, and it can't be applied? ridiculous.
what you seem to miss here is the intention of denying life, NOT the probability of doing so. in both cases - if you really want maths that much - you're 100% sure you want to deny any life from being formed.
Nice try, Cor. But not entirely accurate, because of the reasons I gave in bold above. You will talk about chances and probability, but I can counter ANY of those arguments by:
probability can't be a real justification of morality because it all comes down to INTENTIONS - by your logic, action with 0% success rate aimed at killing someone should be found innocent in every court, it's still a crime though - the INTENTION of killing someone is a crime itself, and you can't apply ANY probability to it, thus - all your (nicely done btw, congratulations! I'm impressed) logic is partially unrelated and not convincing.
I enjoy discussing with you mate, though, so I hope you'll try again. I won't quote the rest, because the rest of your post oscillates about the idea of probability, but again, even if we discuss probability:
you take a single test into consideration, not the overall probability of denying a kid with contraception in whole lifetime, which would obviously break your argument with "low chance vs. high chance" - in other words, I discuss global effects, you discuss a single cause. My logic applies to infinite number of tests, where randomness is taken out of the picture, yours applies to a random factor. Do I even need to mention which one is scientifically better at determining things? mine, obviously. Take million abortions and million times of protected sex, the chance of killing a single life in the former case is 99.99999%, in the latter is 99.8% (let's assume it is). Do your arguments still apply? No, they don't.
Of course I understand million abortions would deny 999999 babies but million times protected sex would deny only 22 343 (random number) but morality isn't about numbers, again: A murder is a murder. It's a special kind of logic that no longer takes number into considerations above certain point, like, killing 90000 and 9000000 people is the same severity of a crime - becase the event itself hits the "cap" of our ability to perceive evil, at which point it no longer matters whether we kill 80476084 people or 9999999999999999999.
And because of it, I still think outcome is the same. Combine it with my earlier bolded arguments and I think you'll understand why I haven't changed my mind one tiny bit, even though you did a good job in reasoning. The only part is that you've taken the reasoning in the wrong direction.
oh, and..
Quote:
Your argument essentially is a black and white thinking fallacy. Note that I'm not saying I've shown that contraception is morally right. I'm saying that you need a new argument to show logically that contraception is morally wrong.
My argument is still the same: the intention AND the outcome is the same. Only the process differ. And, well, the numbers, but I already covered up why we shouldn't take numbers into consideration here, I hope.
And, morality should be black and white. I hate black and white thinking in general, but when it comes to law, it shouldn't be fluid. Because the more fluid we try to make the morals, the more they get dilluted, at the point which you are excused of following a rule in SO MANY CASES you can actually dump the rule altogether. Hope you understand what I mean despite my crappy English.
And it is socially accepted. People want to have sex and their morals get diluted because of it. I'm pro-abortion, pro-contraception and I at least don't feel like a hypocrite while having a protected sex, yet mouthing around that abortion is a crime.
Cheers.
Quote:
How pregnancy/birth feels is not even close to the biggest issue with abortion. I consider a man's viewpoint on the matter equally important to a woman's. You can't excuse a man just from a simple standpoint of anatomy.
A woman still can say: why do you argue about something you will never feel, never understand.
And I think she's right.
We're really big theoreticians here Cor.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 10:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People want to have sex and their morals get diluted because of it. I'm pro-abortion, pro-contraception and I at least don't feel like a hypocrite while having a protected sex, yet mouthing around that abortion is a crime.
You might say the hypocrite thing is reducing abortion to contraception, making it morally easier to nod to abortion.
Tearing down a house that has been halfway built already, isn't the same then seeing a place fit for building one, but not building it (or using it to plant a forest or or a lawn for playing soccer).
Preventing something POTENTIAL from happening is different than undo something that already happened. Everything everyone does is preventing something potential to happen, because it means picking one and only one thing out of myriads of possible things. Even if a woman becomes pregnant she denies and prevents the potential life that might have developed if she would not have become pregnant at that time.
That means, whatever you do, you kill potential.
However, if something is promoted from potential to reality, there is a status change.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2009 12:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You might say the hypocrite thing is reducing abortion to contraception, making it morally easier to nod to abortion.
I never said it's a good thing, if that's what you mean.
But I support it anyway.
Quote:
Tearing down a house that has been halfway built already, isn't the same then seeing a place fit for building one, but not building it (or using it to plant a forest or or a lawn for playing soccer).
Not building it = abstincence
Tearing down = abortion
I don't compare abstinence to abortion.
I compare two things that basically have the same principle. You would make a better example by saying something like, flooding the ground so you can't put a house there.
Quote:
Preventing something POTENTIAL from happening is different than undo something that already happened.
Very convenient way of excusing yourself for preventing new life, that or another way.
Quote:
Everything everyone does is preventing something potential to happen, because it means picking one and only one thing out of myriads of possible things. Even if a woman becomes pregnant she denies and prevents the potential life that might have developed if she would not have become pregnant at that time.
We don't need "what ifs".
You take contraception meds = you deny a life that would most likely form after X attempts (X may be one or 10000, doesn't matter), providing you're both able to have kids.
You abort = you deny a life that would most likely get born (the chance is high, but you can never be sure anyway).
What's to deny here? Isn't it, like, obvious? and if you compare those two, you get the impression that it's more or less the same thing.
Oh, I didn't say it's EXACTLY the same, 100% same... only that's it's basically the same concept, thus, people thinking abortion is a crime shouldn't use contraception, because they are hypocritical.
Because... take a look at some diaphragms or pills, for example. Those types that basically allow impregnation, but prevent the zygote from nesting in uterus, and force a natural abortion.
That means it's also "destroying what's already happened"
Why is it accepted?
Why is postinor sold in pharmacies and accepted by crowds, even though it forces natural abortion ?
It's also the same thing.
I call it hypocrisy.
I know what's the problem. People are "trying to be good" and they will literally do everything to convince themselves that they are, but at the other hand they like sex too much to be "truly good" according to their morals (that means allowing life to be formed. Isn't that like, the biggest argument against abortion? That it "denies life"? well, I'm merely pointing that it's hypocrisy to say that and deny life every day while having wild sex.) So they pick what's convenient and strongly try to justify their actions, even though it's more or less the same thing as what they condemn.
Quote:
That means, whatever you do, you kill potential.
No, you do it only when you take deliberate action to kill it (aka taking pills or aborting).
Quote:
However, if something is promoted from potential to reality, there is a status change.
Yes, but the intention is the same, and the effect is the same, so why is one thing justified and encouraged and the other - called a crime?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
