Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

bowchickawowwow · 14-11-11, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam

Strangely enough, I don't live my life according to Pyrrhonian Skepticism; I think that would be practically impossible.

Is it possible to justify a question? Questions make no (explicit) assertions requiring justification

Meh, I don't really know... if you want a proper answer from me I'll need to think about it more, and I'll want a definition of "rights" - specifically with regard to whether you talk of objective moral rights or the legal rights of citizens.

However, I don't think my beliefs are relevant to my question haha! What I wish to know is this: what is it about not being entirely physical that allows (for want of a better word) an individual rights? Why does the lack of non-physical attributes preclude the possibility of the possessor of said attributes having rights?

Any moment in an individual's life (assuming that said individual is not infertile) also possesses the potential for said individual's gametes to grow and become human beings... the "argument from potential" alone argues, by necessary implication, that spending any moment not copulating is as morally wrong as abortion.

And there it is. ALL HAIL @Jam!!

Cougar88 · 14-11-11, 12:49 PM

Lol. Well while I wouldn't mind if all of life was spent on copulating, I don;t think that would be possible. Also, I don't think that is a good debate argument To be honest. It's not fair really to take somebody's argument and stretch it out to an extreme. I mean we humans do need to multiply in order to survive (fact) but multiplying all the time is not necessary, and to imply that we should be multiplying all the time is wrong. (but like i said, it would be alot of fun

)

Jam · 14-11-11, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar88

Lol. Well while I wouldn't mind if all of life was spent on copulating, I don;t think that would be possible. Also, I don't think that is a good debate argument To be honest. It's not fair really to take somebody's argument and stretch it out to an extreme. I mean we humans do need to multiply in order to survive (fact) but multiplying all the time is not necessary, and to imply that we should be multiplying all the time is wrong. (but like i said, it would be alot of fun

)

It is precisely because the idea (that copulating constantly is right) is wrong that we should reject the argument from potential. If a person argues that it is potential for life that is sacred, but then argues that we shouldn't spend as much time as reasonably achievable copulating, then their argument is logically inconsistent. The truth of the first necessarily implies the truth of the second.

There is not a question as to whether it is "a good debate argument": the premises of the argument from potential entail the conclusion that not copulating is the equivalent of abortion. Under a formal axiomatic system (i.e. deductive logic), this is absolutely true.