Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[carrdero]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387918' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:24 PM']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.[/quote]
In some cases, Natural Law is imposed because it is the only way something can work (without constant supervision or judgment). With the example of traffic lights, somebody invented that, it most likely took a lot of thought to operate and function in exactly that manner.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387915' date='Sep 18 2007, 03:21 PM']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.[/quote]
Since I've been building signalized intersections (traffic lights) for a couple of decades, I've just got to say this has got to be one heap of nonsense that I don't even understand.
There are rules and laws regarding the right use of traffic lights. Like anything humanity does, we have a choice to do it for good, or do it for evil (including using traffic lights to manipulate traffic the way YOU want it).

[carrdero]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387938' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:41 PM']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?[/quote]
Conception seems to be Natural Law at work. Like you mentioned it seems to be biological (as compared to spiritual). Both beliefs are pursuasive but I tend to sway more towards the soul incarnating with the body at birth (or at some other time).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387947' date='Sep 18 2007, 03:53 PM']Conception seems to be Natural Law at work. Like you mentioned it seems to be biological (as compared to spiritual). Both beliefs are pursuasive but I tend to sway more towards the soul incarnating with the body at birth (or at some other time).[/quote]So it's just a matter of personal choice of what to believe? Any sort of logic and/or reason that directed you to that particualr choice?

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1387945' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:50 PM']Since I've been building signalized intersections (traffic lights) for a couple of decades, I've just got to say this has got to be one heap of nonsense that I don't even understand.
There are rules and laws regarding the right use of traffic lights. Like anything humanity does, we have a choice to do it for good, or do it for evil (including using traffic lights to manipulate traffic the way YOU want it).[/quote]
The key word here is humanity and humans will judge. Sure if you get caught running a traffic light, a human who has the authority will cite someone. That is human Law. The traffic light does not care if do not slow down on the yellow. A traffic light will not hold or physically stop your car if you attempt to drive through the red. A traffic light will not make a loud sound to bring a green light to your attention to move ahead. A traffic light is not there to judge or enforce right or wrong. It is only in place to perform a function. This is how Natural Law has been explained to me.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387956' date='Sep 18 2007, 04:01 PM']The key word here is humanity and humans will judge. Sure if you get caught running a traffic light, a human who has the authority will cite someone. That is human Law. The traffic light does not care if do not slow down on the yellow. A traffic light will not hold or physically stop your car if you attempt to drive through the red. A traffic light will not make a loud sound to bring a green light to your attention to move ahead. A traffic light is not there to judge or enforce right or wrong. It is only in place to perform a function. This is how Natural Law has been explained to me.[/quote]
That's murkier than submariner's coffee. I'll leave it alone because I don't hinkt I can grasp the concept. Some lights do make noise, that would be a function of the object. TS lights are objects. Period. What role they play to demonstrate natural law is beyond me.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1387953' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:57 PM']So it's just a matter of personal choice of what to believe? Any sort of logic and/or reason that directed you to that particualr choice?[/quote]
If one believes that GOD infuses physical entities with a soul or whether one believes that a spiritual entity personally chooses to incarnate into a physical entity, both GOD or the individual entity would have to know in advance if a physical human form was going to be aborted and I do not believe that any spiritual entity who has this previous knowledge would knowingly incarnate into a human shell that was destined to be terminated. What would be the purpose?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387943' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:47 PM']In some cases, Natural Law is imposed because it is the only way something can work (without constant supervision or judgment). With the example of traffic lights, somebody invented that, it most likely took a lot of thought to operate and function in exactly that manner.[/quote]

I am going to step away from the traffic light idea. There is some problems with your statement

"only way" needs to be fleshed out. Why is it the only way? And by only way do you mean I can not do another way, or I should not? If it is that I should not then who is determining that? In order to have a rule or a law you need a source/standard that wrote the law. An example is homosexual sex. This "can" happen, but it is a violation of natural law because it is not the intended funtion of human sexuality. In that there are built-in side effects because our creator designed a world that works in balance. Does that make sense?


[quote name='carrdero' post='1387947' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:53 PM'][b]Conception seems to be Natural Law at work.[/b] Like you mentioned it seems to be biological (as compared to spiritual). Both beliefs are pursuasive but I tend to sway more towards the soul incarnating with the body at birth (or at some other time).[/quote]

What? the [b]bold[/b] section does not make sense. I mentioned the point of conception as the biological start because that is not argued. It is the ontological change from seed to life. Thus, making the known fact that it is the point of change it would also be considered the point of which the soul is there. It isnt a matter of "compared" but just a logical answer. The problem with your theory is that when someone says that it isnt the time a soul is there then you are left grabbing a random time for no reason. You cite birth as an example. But in the babies' physiological make-up there is nothing at birth to earn such a change. The baby is what it is and it is born. If it is alive outside the mom, it is alive in the women. Hence why it can die outside the mom and in. It can get sick in or out, it relates and moves in or out. It has synoptical (sp-not workin on this computer) brain function and possible cognative thought. Yet you think the action of birth is when the soul arrives? What does this mean for the babies that die (still-born) do they never have a soul? What about the partial birth abortions? They have a soul just long enough to die? What about babies born early-thus not physically developed. No soul until they are done in the incubator?

[Hashbrowns]

Of course, natural law is not going to judge us. back to the lighthouse analogy, it doesn't move, it just tells us what to do. And if we don't obey, we die.

Moral law very often proceds from natural law. Natural law is just the law that is written on our hearts by God, the law that all men can perceive by honest reflection and truth searching. For instance, killing a man is an obvious immoral action. But before that, it is against natural law. Every man is born with the knowledge that killing another man is wrong, and it is only a very deformed conscience that believes in his heart that killing another man is no big deal, or good in the mind of cannibals. Does this make sense?

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1387957' date='Sep 18 2007, 03:05 PM']That's murkier than submariner's coffee. I'll leave it alone because I don't hinkt I can grasp the concept. Some lights do make noise, that would be a function of the object. TS lights are objects. Period. What role they play to demonstrate natural law is beyond me.[/quote]
Believe me when I tell you that I am trying to come to grips with this myself. Sometimes it helps if one tries to get into the mind of the creator and to figure out exactly what their creation was purposed for and what exactly what their creation can and cannot be used for.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387958' date='Sep 18 2007, 03:09 PM']If one believes that GOD infuses physical entities with a soul or whether one believes that a spiritual entity personally chooses to incarnate into a physical entity, both GOD or the individual entity [b]would have to know in advance if a physical human form was going to be aborted[/b] and I do not believe that any spiritual entity who has this previous knowledge would knowingly incarnate into a human shell that was destined to be terminated. What would be the purpose?[/quote]

very faulty logic here. Free will, as well as random interaction defies your statement. The mother does not know she is going to be sick and lose the baby. She does not know she will be in a car accident and lose the baby. There is the theodicy matter of God "knowing/seeing" the event of abortion and how/if he interfers with it. But the logic is again faulty. You could argue the problem for anyone murdered or any murderer. Why would God let Hitler live if he knew for certain what was going to happen? I believe God knows there is a possibility, but the gift of life is a risk in love.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387958' date='Sep 18 2007, 04:09 PM']If one believes that GOD infuses physical entities with a soul or whether one believes that a spiritual entity personally chooses to incarnate into a physical entity, both GOD or the individual entity would have to know in advance if a physical human form was going to be aborted and I do not believe that any spiritual entity who has this previous knowledge would knowingly incarnate into a human shell that was destined to be terminated. What would be the purpose?[/quote]The purpose would be that GOD allows free will and allows us to do good and evil. Why let people be born with a heart defect and die at birth? Why let people be born just to be killed in a car accident? Does God know this will happen or not?

God allows us to participate with Him. We can have sex and allow God create humans with and through us. God has already demonstrated he can make a human out of mud, or us a human rib and make another human. Working with us volunteering the sperm and eggs He made us with is no big deal. God's foreknowledge of our eventual demise, whether a speeding bus or a suction pump, is a given. God allows us kill each other in the womb or outside it. Us trying to decide 'when' God grants a soul is us trying to catch God in a legal loophole so we can destroy something that we want to call a 'thing', hoping that God hasn't decided they are a person. Pretty risky business, trying to outsmart God, if you ask me.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Anomaly

[carrdero]

[quote]Hashbrowns writes: Of course, natural law is not going to judge us. back to the lighthouse analogy, it doesn't move, it just tells us what to do. And if we don't obey, we die.[/quote]
Meanwhile, back at the traffic lights. If one runs a red traffic light at night when there is no one around, does one die? Did one just “put one over” on the traffic light? No, the traffic light continues to function with no offense taken.

[quote]Hashbrowns writes For instance, killing a man is an obvious immoral action.[/quote]
Yes, humans judge death and will punish for murder.


[quote]Hashbrowns writes: But before that, it is against natural law.[/quote]
I’m not sure if I am understanding this point? Natural Law says that if you are human, that you will die someday and that you will die in some way. Natural Law does not provide any guarantees with how long one survives on this planet or any place where one can be secure from death. Death does not judge or take revenge on it's attacker. If this was built into Natural Law than anyone who died from another person’s hand would resurrect instantly.

[quote]Hashbrowns writes: Every man is born with the knowledge that killing another man is wrong,[/quote]
Are we really born with this knowledge?

[quote]Hashbrowns writes: Does this make sense?[/quote]
No

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387974' date='Sep 18 2007, 04:34 PM']Meanwhile, back at the traffic lights. If one runs a red traffic light at night when there is no one around, does one die? Did one just “put one over” on the traffic light? No, the traffic light continues to function with no offense taken.[/quote]But you violated the purpose of the traffic signal's existence. the TS was created and put into operation to bring order to the vehicles that would pass by it. Ignoring and violating the TS's purpose for existence because circumstances allows you to without physical effects accomplishes what? You have still nullified the TS's pupose for 'being'. Are humans mere constructs of complex enzymes and only have 'purpose' when interacting with each other?

[carrdero]

[quote]Anamoly writes: The purpose would be that GOD allows free will and allows us to do good and evil.[/quote]
Then why would GOD have reason to take offense when the outcome does not match His perception of what is good or what is bad? What would be the purpose of designating something good or something evil? Why would GOD enact moral laws when it was He who has given us the “gift” of free will in the first place? If one believes that GOD provides the soul to an infant that is forming and knowingly sends a soul to infuse with a body that He already knows is headed for termination, does GOD not become an accomplice to murder? Does not GOD also have the same blood on His “hands”?

[quote]Anamoly writes: Why let people be born with a heart defect and die at birth?[/quote]
Why indeed. What are some other reasons that these instances should exist?

[quote]Anamoly writes:We can have sex and allow God create humans with and through us.[/quote]
We do not even need to have sex to do this. With artificial insemination one does not even need a husband. We have hacked this code of Natural Law.

[quote]Anamoly writes:God has already demonstrated he can make a human out of mud, or us a human rib and make another human.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I must have missed this presentation.

Edited September 18, 2007 by carrdero