Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[eperez874]

abortion is wrong because it goes against the second commandment and the fith wich they are "[i]thou shall love thy neighbor as thy self"[/i] and "[i]thou shall not kill"

[/i][i]"but he that scadalize one of these little ones that belived in me, it where better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be throwned in the deph of the sea[/i]." (St.Mattew chapter 18 verse 6)

a rela mother would give her life for her child and let him live rather than her own life.

because one day that child will say "my mom loved me even she knew that she would die, and let me live. my mom is a heroin."

now at days lots of girls worry about what if they will die? how much pain will they have if he/she is born? they never ask are they brave enogh to give their life for their own son/or daughter or both?

abortion is murder. no matter what circumstance

now there is only one exeption that the church allows it wich is not really abortion, but if we have a case such as this one the mom will die and the child after birth will die too then in there it is the only time when the catholic church allows it but only for that time.

now if the girl does not what the babby or she wants it but her perants will get angry for having it then she can donate the baby into an orphanatory. since she/he will have a family that will ove him and raise him. the e child at least will know when he raises that his/her mom was not selfish but let him live.

birth control is wrong why because you are telling God, you do not give me the baby when you want, only when i want to have it.
it is revolting God and not only that the cells stop from creating him/her

God also has created man to expand in the world we should not worry about over population. God will take care of it.
now there is also girl who has birth control pills but what they d onot know is the following they are not really having a birth contol pill but they are ehmm him in the toilet.
all this i learned fro my perants since they are pro-life.

why must it be violence when you can give it for donation?
it is not really hard.

i have fear on God. now life it is made by preassure not by pleasure.

but you have that choice. warning your second choice, it does not mean because you try to stay out of pain it does not mean it makes it right.

it takes a real mother to do this and you must be aware that voilence it is not a solution.
i even heard some people that took abortion thay can hear their own child in their house.

pleasure it is only for AFTER MARRIAGE. not before because you might not know if that is thy future neighbors wife.

thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.

always we must be respectfull no matter what happenes.

Edited September 5, 2007 by eperez874

[eperez874]

so i win this debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='eperez874' post='1387425' date='Sep 17 2007, 06:38 PM']so i win this debate.[/quote]
What debate?

[N/A Gone]

In order to ruffle feathers. (Im very anti-abortion btw)

Your initial post is hard to follow. So I assume it is a generic anti-abortion, anti-birth control argument laced with emotional stories.

The argument that you will receive would be as followed

1.) It isnt murder because they are not alive yet, or not human yet. Thats why we dont call them babies, it is a fetus.

2.) If you want to cite old test then explain in Exodus 21 why there is a detailed description of the law of the ancient Israelities where the penalty for murder is death, but it also says that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid by the husband. Clearly murder did not apply to the fetus.

3.) Concept of fetus as a human being from the moment of conception in relatively new. St. Thomas held that an embryo does not have a soul until several weeks into the pregnancy. Aquinas accepted Aristotle's view that the soul is the "substantial form" of a man.

4.) Jeremiah has nothing to do with life, and rather speaks of God predestination for Jeremiah as a prophet.

5.) Women's right, not yours

Birth control

1.) All the same arguments from above
2.) Sex is more than just an act for procreation.
3.) Church does not have authority to control bedroom
4.) Catholic's use birth control and call it NFP. Having sex at a time when the women is not able to conceive is sex without a procreative purpose.


ok..have fun

Edited September 18, 2007 by Revprodeji

[prose]

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes: 1.) It isnt murder because they are not alive yet, or not human yet. Thats why we dont call them babies, it is a fetus.[/quote]

I usually draw attention to the difference between the human BEcoming and a human BEing.

Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.

Edited September 18, 2007 by carrdero

[N/A Gone]

Can I disagree even if it is in response to my pseudo post?

Or does someone else wanna tell Carrdero why he is wrong?

[Hashbrowns]

There is something icky about 'hacking' Natural Law. God gave us natural law to guide our lives. A teacher once explained it as a lighthouse. A warship was out at sea and saw the light. They used morse code to signal to the light to move out of the way. The people in the lighthouse signaled back: no, you move out of the way. The warship signaled back: I'm a warship, you move. The people in the lighthouse signaled back: This is a lighthouse. move. The warship moved.

Bad things happen when you don't follow Natural law...

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387719' date='Sep 18 2007, 07:57 AM']I usually draw attention to the difference between the human BEcoming and a human BEing.

Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.[/quote]



Fine, I will play.

(good lighthouse analogy btw)

1.) Ontologically there is no difference in a human being and a "human becoming" as you said. if you say there is than give me the point in which that happens. Is a pre-mature baby not a human? My wife was born after 4 months and she is a normal person. (a fox if you ask me,.) so when does it become a human? Also, if you need to be fully physically human in order to be considered human (as is the argument I presented above) does that mean someone with a physical condition like a birth defect or a war injury is no longer considered human? Last, but not least, even if the "human becoming" is less than human it is still a life and in that we are bound to preserve that life if we can. Even the senseless killing of an animal is wrong, (Michael vick) why would the senseless killing of a pseudo-human be any different?

2.) Natural law. Stepping outside the moral angle into the functional angle Natural law is needed by society in order to maintain the species. I remember on Futurama when they had a fake-sex-ed video that was talking about not having sex with robots because there is no creation and the society would die off. Nature law is the inherent compass of what we should do. It is the intended function of a thing or person. Martin Luther King's letter from jail was nothing more than a thesis on natural law. I agree with you that it seems our society is a 13 yr old girl with a rebel stage, but that doesnt mean it is right. Birth control as a violation of natural law has serious problems. 1.) population as I mentioned (extreme, but valid if you look at the depopulation problems europe is having and economically we are 15-20 years from it also--more on that if you ask) but the fact that you take a powerful thing like sex and change dynamic creates serious problems. You withdraw the need for the sex to be in a stable situation. (not even talking marriage, but that is the point) if the sex is for plessure than it can be with Joe at the bar and leave him in the morning. But if sex has the potential for life then you will not have the sex unless it is in a situation that can harbor that life. The woman makes sure she is in a situation where she can get taken care of and thus has the sex. You could argue, and stats back me up. That birthcontrol has led to the distruction of the family unit by making affairs easier, pre-married sex easier and the focus of sex no longer on love but plessure which means you desire a car with less miles and husbands leave their wives for a young girl. Not because she would make a good mother, but because she looks nice in the jeans. Thus woman is focused on getting career and not married until 30+ because they need to be able to provide for themselves. Kids grow up with single parents and repeat the process again. The entire focus of sex changes with birth control. It isnt a matter of a couple using it to wait to have kids, it is a pandora's box that dehumanizes the woman beyond the point of recognizing her womanhood.

We have not even got to the fun medical stuff. If you want to, we can. I did a final on that.

if you disagree on any point just quote it and we can talk sir.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Hashbrowns' post='1387728' date='Sep 18 2007, 08:49 AM']There is something icky about 'hacking' Natural Law. God gave us natural law to guide our lives. A teacher once explained it as a lighthouse. A warship was out at sea and saw the light. They used morse code to signal to the light to move out of the way. The people in the lighthouse signaled back: no, you move out of the way. The warship signaled back: I'm a warship, you move. The people in the lighthouse signaled back: This is a lighthouse. move. The warship moved.

Bad things happen when you don't follow Natural law...[/quote]
I heard Natural Law compared to the example of traffic lights. Traffic lights do not judge right or wrong, they are there just to perform a function. Nobody stands around to enforce the right or wrong use of traffic lights, that would be defeating the purpose of having traffic lights.

[N/A Gone]

That logic makes no sense.

if natural law is the function at which all things naturally work and relate with each other than it can not be a random thing, rather it needs to be intellegent in order to understand the workings of all related things, thus (insert intel design argument) natural law is one of the strongest arguments for Intel design and any of the token "is there a God arguments" what you are describing as traffic lights is not natural law.

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes: 1.) Ontologically there is no difference in a human being and a "human becoming" as you said. if you say there is than give me the point in which that happens. Is a pre-mature baby not a human? My wife was born after 4 months and she is a normal person. (a fox if you ask me,.) so when does it become a human?[/quote]

This would depend on when one believes the soul incarnates into the body.

Edited September 18, 2007 by carrdero

[N/A Gone]

This is true. Like I cited, you would need to give me a point that it happens. In most moral theology it is conception. Conception is a major change and the source point of the biological organism. In the history of the church we have been taught of a bodily ressurection which makes me think the soul is not altogether seperate from the body, thus the body would not be seperate from the soul.


And of course if someone even thinks there is a soul. But the most extreme atheist that does not believe in a soul will still classify something as "alive"

Now, are you playing devils advocate like I did in the first part?

[Hashbrowns]

"Traffic lights do not judge right or wrong, they are there just to perform a function. Nobody stands around to enforce the right or wrong use of traffic lights, that would be defeating the purpose of having traffic lights."

ok. so, The city gives us traffic lights to keep everything in order, they don't have people standing there enforcing the lights, but they do have the power to render judgment on people who ignore them. But they are there to help us, why would one ignore them? God gives us natural law. He doesn't smite us instantly when we disobey Him, but He will give us our just reward.

I don't think the argument is so much why we should obey natural law as it is when does a baby become a baby. quoting Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small."

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Hashbrowns' post='1387939' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:41 PM']I don't think the argument is so much why we should obey natural law as it is when does a baby become a baby. quoting Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small."[/quote]


anytime you can bring Seuss into an argument it is a good thing. The issue with "baby becomes a human" is that (as far as I know) no one has provided a possible exact time. that seriously hurts the argument. There is no ontological change besides conception. Everything else is growth on that.