Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GapingFleshwound t1_j41un2t wrote

“This would lead to some absurd consequences – if the state has an interest in protecting potential persons, then they would have an interest in banning products like contraceptives or procedures like vasectomies. But surely, at least for now, this is not what the Court suggests.”

This is where I stopped reading. How absolutely moronic. There’s an obvious difference between aborting potential and preventing potential. That the author just calls this an “absurdity” without any recognition of that material difference undermines his entire analysis.

3

Vainti t1_j43axpc wrote

What is the salient ethical difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy?

Either way pro life activists should stop using the phrase “potential person” (or “potential life”) to mean specifically a fetus. Because sperm and eggs would be potential persons by definition. He’s not a moron for knowing the correct definition of “potential”.

7

GapingFleshwound t1_j43efly wrote

Because a sperm left unmolested will not become a person. A fetus left unmolested will. Should be pretty straightforward. I don’t see the logical basis for your objection. A fetus is a complete potential person. A sperm is not.

And I’m staunchly pro-choice. But this is a philosophical conversation and our politics have no place in it.

0

Vainti t1_j43j3l9 wrote

You say this like unmolested is a common or coherent term in moral philosophy. What is the difference in the consequences between ending the potential before vs after fertilization? If you prefer to articulate it in terms of virtue ethics or deontological reasoning, that’s fine, but don’t just tell me the obvious empirical difference between two objects and pretend you’ve made a point about their value.

Also this has nothing to do with politics. In English “potential” has nothing to do with the level of molestation required to achieve said potential. You wouldn’t say a person can only have potential in something if they could achieve it without having to practice. Nor would you say that a business venture lacks potential because it requires adaptability.

9

MoonageDayscream t1_j44at7h wrote

Lol at unmolested. What the truth is that a fertilized egg must "molest" a host to achieve anything. Leave it in a petri dish and see what happens, I'll wait.

6

GapingFleshwound t1_j44clag wrote

Lol.

−2

Cbassman96 t1_j4ctvyn wrote

“Lol” to the fact that your logic is inferior, and you chose to stick your head in the sand instead of adjusting your POV or presenting a novel counter argument.

0

GapingFleshwound t1_j4cwoys wrote

Yes my logic is inferior because you say so. Just like a fetus “molests” it’s mother because the lass above says so.

You have no idea how ridiculous you are. I spent years avoiding people like this in University just to find them online populating spaces that could otherwise be productive.

None of you have any intent or ability to argue honestly which is why I just “lol” and move on. Because it’s a pointless exercise in frustration with the online narcissists.

2

AngelicDevilz t1_j48wbvr wrote

A fetus is a living human according to accepted biology.

A sperm isnt even human

−1

Vainti t1_j48y4nq wrote

No, biologists would classify both as human. Both are “of or belong to the genus homo”. Human sperm, fertilized human embryos, and human feces are all considered human in a sense. But that also isn’t relevant in any moral framework. What you’re probably trying to say is that a fetus is a “person”. Which would be an entity deserving of a right to life. That’s not a biology question and not the easiest thing to justify.

5

AngelicDevilz t1_j48zb7t wrote

No. I never said person for a reason.

Show me a source claiming a sperm is a human.

Show me one saying human feces is human.

You cannot because you made it up.

I can show sources that state a fetus is both human and alive.

1

Vainti t1_j490z73 wrote

Human as an adjective refers to of or belonging to the genus homo. Which is generally applied to anything containing human dna. But you kind of ignored the bit about wether something is human being irrelevant to moral philosophy. Neither is wether things are alive. Although sperm is arguably alive anyway. You need to ground this in some kind of relevant consequence. What harm is done in abortion that isn’t done with abstinence?

3

AngelicDevilz t1_j491voo wrote

Death. The ending of life. Murder.

None of that happens with bc or rubbers.

And sperm are not alive, to be alive you have to be able to reproduce at some point, sperm can never reproduce no matter how old they get.

Poop isn't human. Look up the genus homo and see if there is a homo turd listed there. A homo sperm. There is not.

And if something is human or not matters quite a bit in many philosophies.

0

pumpkinking-1901 t1_j4p8zt2 wrote

We have no issue applying this logic to drugs that would cause birth defects.

But legally no one cares if you kill it.

1