See, and I actually believe that too (as I’ve said before, your beliefs and mine really aren’t all that far apart). What I don’t believe is that we couldn’t do all that with a condom on.
I believe that you could have done so with a condom on, but also that it still could have resulted in a child, as you point out a all powerful God would not be stopped by a thin latex barrier. And a child still only one possible outcome.
Sure, everything is possible. But I’d rather deal with probabilities then possibilities here. The scenario I painted is far more likely. And I think it is more ethical and practical to discuss likely scenario’s then theoretically possible ones.
Is that what I am doing, or am I painting a likely consequence of their usual arguments that they themselves tend to forget?
The usual argument is: " life is sacred" . I extend that to life that is likely. Not just theoretically possible, like the lives of the dozens of possible children that would be born if a couple had sex the truly Catholic way. No, I extend it to a very likely possible life.
A very likely possible life does not equal a life. Nobody opposite your position claims that it does. You are arguing against a position you have made up yourself.
I take it as there is no beginning of life, but a new life is just the combining of the life that is already inside the parents.
On a soul level I believe it is a actual part of the soul of one parent combined eternally with a part of the soul of the other parent. Always connected to and part of the parents (even through death), and as that child soul grows in Love, the love between the parents and the parents ability to love grows, as that child is part of their very being.
It is perhaps the very reason we are created to have children, to allow Love to grow beyond what is capable inside us.
No. You’ve constructed a quite absurd strawman. You could of course demonstrate that it’s not a strawman by producing a pro-lifer who either already argues as you’re describing, or wishes to defend that position - until then, it’s just you Vs the windmills.
But pro-lifers do not. They are concerned with existing human life (as we perceive it–I understand others disagree with pro-life definitions, and I’m not trying to trigger the usual “when is a person a person?” back and forth). If you don’t get pregnant, I don’t detect some leak in the human sacredness pipeline because there’s some hypothetical kid that could have been conceived. Or whatever it is that you’re arguing.
I get it Maastricht,
Only problem for anti-choicers is that you are thinking like a Mother, one that takes into consideration the good of the child. Thinking ahead like that is typical of moms who care.
This force and drive to produce is a whole other mindset, and reminds me more of some goal oriented coveyor belt creation machine.
I knew a woman who was married and concieved at a time her body was diseased. She was subjected to x rays and strong medications, etc. When she discovererd that she was pregnant, she knew that an abortion would be best. Later when she was in good health, she and her husband concieved again, and had their child.
I suppose that an anti choice person would know better than this good mom, what she should have decided at the time. I saw her morn her decision to abort, but her decision was made was out of love.
That is exactly what I mean, **Florez. **
Well, a) by your logic you already fucked up because if you’d waited longer you’d have even better circumstances to bring forth your child in like more savings, or a larger house or further advanced in your career. Once someone has a kid, they rarely spend any time thinking, “Welp, this was a misfire. Definitely could have done better if I’d waited a year.”
b) Anti-abortionists would say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and regardless of how we’d like our lives to be, you have a potential human gestating in your uterus and it is your duty as a human to see it brought forth and brought up as best you are able. You go to war with the troops you have, not the troops you want.
Inner Stickler, now that IS a strawman. The consideration is if the circumstances are good enough, not if they are a theoretical optimal. The choice between having a baby in a solid relationship with the father, or as a single mom that had to break up her previous relationship because of the pregnancy, is quite likely to have significant economical circumstances for the unborn child.
And an anti-abortionist would say, it’s part of the responsibility of a sexually active adult to take stock of their circumstances and if said circumstances fall below what they consider to be the bare minimum for supporting a child, then they should refrain from sex.
There are a lot of reasons to disagree with anti-abortionists already, I don’t think we need to make up fanciful faux-philosophical positions to ascribe to them as well.
If your point is just that people who procreate at what is ovviously not the optimal time in their lives create teagic social circumstances, that’s probably something many people will nod and agree with - but equating that to the murder of imaginary future persons is just silly.
Now of course the pro life contingent may talk about the potential life of a fetus, but at least they’re talking about a tangible thing.
You are thinking of the fetus as a “potential life” and as your future child as another “potential life”, and don’t see why swapping one potential for the other is morally different than swapping the other way. But people who are pro-life don’t see a fetus as a potential life, they see it as a full fledged person.
For example: let’s say someone had a three-day old baby and their whole life fell apart: their husband was horribly killed, lost their job and savings, parents died, all in one fell swoop. Would that justify infanticide? Would keeping that three day old child alive be “murdering” a potential later child? Of course not, because actual trumps potential every time. To someone who is fully pro-life, the six week old fetus is ethically identical to the three-day old infant. Actual trumps potential.
To me it was a very real position, (“tangible” in Mangetouts words). Nothing fanciful or philosophical about it. And I felt accused by the negation of that stance by the pro-life crowd, even if they don’t realise that is a consequence of their position. No-one, me neither, likes to be called a murderer or a bad person when I try to be an ethical person.
Correct. You outlined the core of this debate.
Maastricht’s argument is very applicable in not just having children but in many aspects of human life and not a strawman, but for many a reality. It is always a excuse to wait for a better time, more stuff, better house, better job, better relationship, etc. The trouble is is those things are relative and always moving with your status. There is always something that appears better. I’ve heard this excuse so many times, and also as a motivation by others to abort for someone on the fence about the decision.
No. That’s the core of the abortion debate which we have done many, many times. The debate in this thread is one that does not exist except in this thread. Please cite one opponent who believes that any possible conception at any future date is a “life” and needs protection.
Were that the case, a prosecutor could charge the murder of a pregnant woman with multiple millions of counts of murder because of all of the potential descendants lost. It’s an absurd argument that nobody besides you is making. And single you are arguing against yourself, you are winning.
And if you are putting forth the case that you are protecting a ‘future’ life, what does that say about the current life in the womb.
What I get from the OP is a argument that it’s worth sacrificing a life today that is known to exist so that a potential other life tomorrow can perhaps have more things. And going further, that keeping that life today means that you will be taking a future life, which doesn’t seem to follow.