tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post7949530318800693731..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Responding to Difficult Situations Regarding Human Conception [Clinton Wilcox]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-72796239101667785512014-09-20T08:50:46.548-07:002014-09-20T08:50:46.548-07:00There's good material on both of these questio...There's good material on both of these questions on this blog:<br /><br />http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2012/10/lti-q-how-do-we-punish-illegal.html<br />http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2008/06/does-thin-uterine-lining-support-pill.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-45898191863727493252014-09-08T19:24:31.375-07:002014-09-08T19:24:31.375-07:00Yes on both counts. Any pill that could conclusive...Yes on both counts. Any pill that could conclusively be proven to prevent implantation of an already-conceived human embryo would constitute murder and should be taken off the market. This accounts for only a small minority of contraceptives.<br /><br />Regarding who would be jailed, as with killing people outside the womb, not all killing of people inside the womb are equal. The abortionist is always morally culpable and should be punished the most severely. At worst, a woman who sees an abortionist would be an accomplice, on par with a woman who hires a hitman to kill her husband. At best, the woman going to see an abortionist wouldn't actually know what she's doing because many women are deceived by the abortion provider into thinking she's only having a "mass of tissue" removed, and some women, while having full knowledge, are not culpable because they were coerced into it. It would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But I believe that women are generally law-abiding citizens and that many of them would not have an abortion if it is made illegal again.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-30260367607384778712014-09-08T08:00:00.695-07:002014-09-08T08:00:00.695-07:00Since Human Life begins at Conception, would that ...Since Human Life begins at Conception, would that mean birth control pills taken every day by some women will be outlawed and women will be jailed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-74125952020660576602014-08-31T19:08:32.780-07:002014-08-31T19:08:32.780-07:00They can't just ignore it, they have to argue ...They can't just ignore it, they have to argue for it. The point of this article was not to support the claim that all humans are persons, just to respond to certain "harder cases." My position actually is not that persons can only be humans. My position is that all humans are persons, but not all persons are humans. Persons are entities with the inherent nature as rational, moral agents. Being a person depends on the kind of thing you are, not on any specific functions you can presently perform.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-14739098451194302132014-08-31T11:50:09.066-07:002014-08-31T11:50:09.066-07:00If you want me to take the position Clinton that o...If you want me to take the position Clinton that only humans can be persons when we have about 180 billion galaxies in our observable distance most likely containing other civilizations out there just like our own can you argue why using philosophy? All of what you said here can be ignored and pro choice philosophers like Lisa Bortolotti and or John Harris can deny your movement that one word.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03292644361319935987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-26882523652163048422014-08-21T15:02:01.802-07:002014-08-21T15:02:01.802-07:00No, you can't. It's a true statement that ...No, you can't. It's a true statement that all human beings began life at fertilization, by the sperm fertilizing the egg. You can't point to exceptions -- e.g. the fact that non-human entities also result from the sperm/egg fusion -- to argue against that, since everything we know scientifically confirms that. There is an exception to every rule. That doesn't invalidate the rule, it just shows that the rule doesn't necessarily *always* hold 100% of the time.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-37641078553645802022014-08-20T20:31:03.149-07:002014-08-20T20:31:03.149-07:00I agreed with a lot you said, except for this part...I agreed with a lot you said, except for this part: <br /><br />"You can't respond to a sound theory by appealing to exceptions or hard cases. "<br /><br />Actually, you can. Even one exception, no matter how trivial or infrequent, is sufficient to disprove a statement, rule, or theory. I could make some assertion X that is true 99.99% of the time, and you could find one exception, and I'd be forced to prefix my assertion with "In general" or "Almost all of the time"<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com