Shane Fletcher has responded to my article. I have to admit this is his finest responses yet. These arguments probably will stand the test of time:

Fletcher already knows about the counterexamples to his stated position. He hasn’t been able to reformulate his position in order to avoid the same counterexamples. So, it is his poor fault for not being able to clearly state his position.

i) cont “But if we are specifically speaking to male caused pregnancies then he’s simply has asserted to a tautology. All male caused pregnancies are caused by males.” Do you agree with me then? That pregnancy as the result of sex is caused by males? cont Because if you don’t agree with me, then we are not at a tautology at all, because my position is pregnancy caused by sexual intercourse, is caused by males. If you believe something different, then let’s discuss it.

Shane thinks that I have disputed this tautology. It is uninterestingly true that all male caused pregnancies are caused by males. He thinks this somehow will revive his problematic case for violating teenage males by government forces. Shane thinks if you agree with a tautological truth then it doesn’t remain a tautology. He constantly needs to try to explain that sexual intercourse can result in children like an overly excited 7th grader. These were never issues in the debate. The original position and the position restated was:

My position is that men are causally responsible for all pregnancies. That’s a biological fact. Women can have plenty of sex & orgasms with 0 chance of pregnancy. I am not sure if you can separate morality and causality, but pregnancy is 100% caused by men’s pleasure, so …

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/06/24/fletchers-cause/

Fletcher can’t admit that he forgot about the obvious counterexamples and simply poorly articulated his position. Is that my fault? Or is he doubling-down because of pride?

ii) “Well, you’re mistaken on both fronts.” I have no idea what both fronts you’re talking about. It’s not clear what this sentence is referring to. Also, at this point you go from calling me Shane to calling me Fletcher. Did you forget what my first name is?

I was stating that he was wrong on both a moral front and on the issue of causation (a.k.a. the other front). Secondly, Fletcher is filled with juvenile complaints. Is he unaware that Fletcher and Shane in this context are co-referential? That they pick out the same object.

“He is sure enough that he wishes doctors would chemically emasculate males in their teens.” lol that birth control is emasculating.
“Furthermore, I’ve shown how women can be the cause of their pregnancies.” And then you said males cause pregnancies. Your replies seem muddled

Birth control that is voluntarily taken by women is on par with a doctor forcing your son to be injected with drugs. We wonder if Shane is still in this reality. I’ve explained how you can have different kinds of causes. Suppose that you were apart of a platoon, but while you were at war your president was messing around with your wife. He has you killed by your squad. The president doesn’t kill you the same way the squad kills you. We often analyze history in terms of long-term causes and short-term causes. The philosopher David Lewis has stated:

“We think of a cause as something that makes a difference, and the difference it makes must be a difference from what would have happened without it. Had it been absent, its effects — some of them, at least, and usually all — would have been absent as well.”

“Shane abandons the feminist argument about bodily autonomy to present that we should violate males bodily autonomy by force:”
Shane: “If you have no problem with taking bodily autonomy from women, why do you have a problem with removing it from men?”

Shane doesn’t understand that this means he is either inconsistent in his worldview or he is arbitrary without some reason women have bodily autonomy and men do not. I’ve already rejected his view of bodily autonomy.

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/05/25/the-pro-life-catalogue/

What is the difference between denying bodily autonomy to women, forcing them to give birth and raise children, AND denying bodily autonomy from men, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I would sincerely like an answer to this question, please.

The problem is that your position needs women to have bodily autonomy and it be a non-arbitrary concept. I’ve already posted resources debunking his position on “bodily autonomy” in the pro-life article. He keeps asking for arguments already provided.

“My first point was that it is intuitive to think that a person that voluntarily engages in sexual activity takes the risk of getting pregnant”
Except that there are plenty of sexual activities that have zero chance of getting pregnant. So the problem is not “sex”.

Well, Fletcher now wants specificity. It clearly would be vaginal sex, but I’m surely not doubting that many people don’t engage in that because they have other options. But does that mean that Fletcher realizes that certain sexual activities would increase the chance of a woman becoming pregnant? Does he grasp that women voluntarily take on that risk?

“Fletcher seems to think that any risk in an activity magically evaporates because you get results that you don’t want(only for women though).” Why do you believe I think that? I have said often that there is risk free sex. Do you disagree with that?

I disagree with the notion of risk-free sex. Child support is enough to show that that is an illusion. Fletcher has no reason to suppose the Father doesn’t have the right to demand the woman get an abortion or demand that he isn’t obligated to pay for the child. Fletcher only believes in bodily autonomy for the mother and restricts the father on an arbitrary whim.

“So, mentioning that other causes are necessary isn’t proof that a woman can’t be a different kind of cause for her pregnancy.” Then you should mention them. The only one you bring up is about having lots of partners, which is not a necessary requirement.

Well, I’ve explained that one numerous times. The problem is with the antenna and not the signal. I am not obligated to keep explaining concepts to you. Try reading for once.

iii) “Here Fletcher states that I’m not dialoguing with him and simply mispresenting him” Well if you’re dialoguing with me, why are you referring to me in the 3rd person? That’s not how dialogue works. That’s you blogging to your imaginary readers.

Well, if you’re reading this then you’re imaginary. Hopefully, for Fletcher’s sake, you are imaginary. He keeps swinging and he keeps missing. I’ve interacted with you through numerous threads and donated 3 articles to your blunders. Maybe you can ask my imaginary readers for advice.

iv) “Shane doesn’t show the statement is false.” I demonstrate that it is self evidently false. There are women who fall pregnant with a single partner. There are women who have multiple partners that don’t fall pregnant. Your statement is false.”If Fletcher’s wife chose not to have sex with Fletcher, then their children(their entire lives in fact) wouldn’t have been born.” Shane’s wife. I don’t care what you call me, but you have to refer to my wife correctly. I’m funny like that.”So, in this regard, Fletcher’s wife [**cringe**] is a cause of her pregnancies.” She did consent to allow me to be the cause of her pregnancies. Because she was happy for me to cause her to become pregnant.

He said my statements were self-evidently false. That simply not true and claims to self-evident truths are a dime a dozen. He misses the point by bringing up random non-relevant things. I posited that the counterfactual statement could be POSSIBLY true:

“If such a woman didn’t sleep with many men, then it wouldn’t have obtained that she would have gotten pregnant.”

Fletcher focuses on the fact that I said “many” even though it raises the risk that the more you have unprotected sex, the likelihood of the event of her becoming pregnant increases. But Shane doesn’t understand simply points like that because he’s a beta-male punching bag. All Fletcher states is that this isn’t true in cases where it didn’t happen, but so what? That doesn’t mean it couldn’t possibly be true. Furthermore, we could readjust it to apply to a woman with a single spouse(as my next example proved). My example about Fletcher’s wife is simply ignored for his childish and moronic “silly” business and his demand I refer to his wife differently. Fletcher isn’t my boss. I’ll write respectfully but I’ll write as I please. In his non-response to my point, he states that his wife “consent to allow me to be the cause of her pregnancies”. Probably the dumbest response so far. Now, he purposely concedes his entire case but is so cowardly he words it as if he is making a point for his position. Remember from prior posts:

If Fletcher’s wife chose not to have sex with Fletcher, then their children(their entire lives in fact) wouldn’t have been born.

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/06/25/do-men-have-bodily-autonomy/

A leading approach to the study of causation has been to analyze causation in terms of counterfactual conditionals. A counterfactual conditional is a subjunctive conditional sentence, whose antecedent is contrary-to-fact. Here is an example: “if the butterfly ballot had not been used in West Palm Beach, then Albert Gore would be the president on the United States.” In the case of indeterministic outcomes, it may be appropriate to use probabilistic consequents: “if the butterfly ballot had not been used in West Palm Beach, then Albert Gore would have had a .7 chance of being elected president.” A probabilistic counterfactual theory of causation (PC) aims to analyze causation in terms of these probabilistic counterfactuals. The event B is said to causally depend upon the distinct event A just in case both occur and the probability that B would occur, at the time of As occurrence, was much higher than it would have been at the corresponding time if A had not occurred. This counterfactual is to be understood in terms of possible worlds: it is true if, in the nearest possible world(s) where A does not occur, the probability of B is much lower than it was in the actual world. On this account, the relevant notion of `probability-raising’ is not understood in terms of conditional probabilities, but in terms of unconditional probabilities in different possible worlds.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Suppose we use the counterfactual theory of causation: “If A did not obtain, then B would not have obtained”.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/calvinism-determinism.html

Let’s make this as clear as possible beta-abortionist Shane:

If the events where your wife consented to have intercourse with you didn’t obtain, then your children would not have obtained.

Does Fletcher think that is false? Fletcher can’t see that he is wrong because he has to defend his view that women should be able to kill babies and young children for personal pleasure.

v) “Nowhere has Fletcher stepped into the Christian worldview.”
Sure I have, sir. Especially in the question about bodily autonomy? I would like to hear your response to the difference between removing it from pregnant women, and men who cause unwanted pregnancies.”He has simply created artificial rules and imposed them onto the Christian worldview.” What rules did I create? “My point is subtle.” lol
“If women aren’t morally responsible for their children because they were caused to be pregnant with such an unwanted pregnancy, then men are also not culpable because they were caused to impregnate the woman.”
Again, I don’t bring up the morality. I am just pointing out the causality of pregnancy. It is men ejaculating into vaginas. If you really want to cut down on abortions, let’s cut down on the number of times that happens when the women doesn’t want to have a baby. Men need to own this. If you want to make the claim that no-one is morally responsible for pregnancy, then Hooray! Guilt free abortions all round! But better than guilt free abortion, is eliminating unwanted pregnancy. So let’s work on what is the cause of all those.

Fletcher argued we ought to chemically manipulate teenage boys. But he didn’t argue any ethical points. Fletcher doesn’t care about babies or abortions. A moral option to his wicked alternative is for mothers to stop murdering their children. He doesn’t bring up morality because his views can’t support an objective ethic. He pretends not to be making an ethical point but that is because he knows that his view can’t stand refutation. He mentions this in a thread about the ethics of abortion because he is making an ethical point but hiding it. He is either making an irrelevant point or he is making an ethical point. I assume the latter. Shane at the end of the articles celebrates the murder of unborn infants. He does it by realizing that my criticism would entail that nobody in his worldview would be culpable for abortions. But he doesn’t realize that it also means that Shane(if consistent) believes that rapist are guilty of the crimes they do because they were caused by outside forces. So, Shane indirectly has to think murderers, rapist, serial killers, and terrorist are truly innocent. Fletcher’s position says “Hooray!” to murder and rape. Congrats. You win Shane.