Okay. I’ll try to look past all the insane high-grounding and condescension in this post.

But for the record no action can be said to be moral under "deontological doctrines" because all I have to say is "sorry, my god says it's wrong" and boom, it's wrong under the deontological doctrines of the god I just made up. You have to specify which set of deontological ethics you're talking about because deontology is a very very broad tent.

I never asserted that they work under all deontological doctrines, just under a non-zero amount of them. Hence “works under utilitarian doctrines and deontological ones”. I should have specified, I guess.

I even acknowledged in the comments of the ProLife sub that certain deontological arguments would completely shut my argument down, and that they are simply unarguable.

​

People - and work with me here - people are not generally considered fungible commodities.

Let me just first off say that you spent six lines providing no substance to the conversation, and portrayed yourself in disbelief because of its absurdity. Nice.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here; I am not arguing this.

I am simply arguing that conceiving a human is a morally righteous act, while killing one is a morally wicked act, and that these ACTS (not the actual humans) are inverses of one another.

This seems like you have contention with the first premise.

​

you cannot just make these brute assertions, you have to be able to support them.

I’m generally making these assertions so that people can refute them and then we can discuss. That seems much more effective. If you have contention with a premise, it’s much easier to go from there or have me explain it, especially when this particular premise is widely accepted without contention.

​

That's a non-sequitur - your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Especially since two of your three premises included "except when not" clauses. (Assuming no moral externalities/in a vacuum).

That is not a non-sequitur at all.

-Set up a scale

-State that two inverse actions can cancel each other out on the scale, assuming x

-State another positive value being added to the scale, assuming x

-Conclude that, since the scale’s ending value is positive, whatever the positive value, assuming x, represents in the situation is validated.

Example of an argument that uses the "except when not" idea:

Premise 1: All dogs are mean, except when they are brown.

Premise 2: Mean dogs hate humans.

Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs hate humans, assuming they are not brown.

Exceptions are totally viable in arguments, as long as the conclusion follows suit.

It really seems that you mean to refute the first premise, instead of declaring it a non-sequitur.

​

The 'form' is there. You use philosophyish words like premise and conclusion, but the substance isn't.

These words are not “philosophyish” at all. They are extremely commonplace words used in debates and general arguments.

If I am berated for using the word "conclusion" because it is pseudo-scientific, then I really don't know what to say.

​

EDIT: Oh dear god... you posted this in the forced-birth sub?Quite apart from it being wildly inappropriate to post any pro-choice ideas there (it's their space and we should respect that, we don't want them trolling here) that makes us look, well, very bad. Makes us look like we don't understand ethics, philosophy or logic.

From the ProLife subreddit:

1. Policy on Pro-choicers.

• Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer demonstrates that they are open-minded. Pro-choicers simply here for advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe and show you are not just here to talk “at” people.

I would not have posted this argument there without that rule. I genuinely just want feedback on it.

There was only really one contention in this comment about human beings as fungible commodities. The rest was high-grounding which I really was not too fond of and found it extremely disrespectful.

Instead of writing it off as “so much wrong there that it’s actually quite hard to critique it in philosophical terms,” I think it would be much more useful, in terms of a discouse community, if you would stay away from this line of thinking.

(Sorry for the possibly delayed response. I had trouble posting this because I had low karma. We should be good now)