Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[carrdero]

[quote]Anamoly writes: 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?[/quote]
In the case of the person who ran the traffic light, it may have gotten them to their destination a few seconds earlier.
[quote]Anamoly writes:You have still nullified the TS's pupose for 'being'.[/quote]
The traffic light still exists, it still has a function to perform, it still has a valid purpose, it is just that someone managed to side-step its purpose.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes: Why is it the only way?[/quote]
It is the only way it which it can function effectively, without malfunction or monitoring.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: And by only way do you mean I can not do another way, or I should not?[/quote]
Usually Natural Law dictates how far humans can tamper with it. Weather would probably be a good example of this. Nature can be sidestepped but it cannot be fooled.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: 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.[/quote]
That would probably be the one who created it. I believe that there were many creators who had a hand in designing Natural Law for this environment, not just GOD.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: This "can" happen, but it is a violation of natural law because it is not the intended funtion of human sexuality.[/quote]
I personally would not classify homosexuality as Natural but I would not go as far to imply it is a violation or that it is wrong. Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law because there is no evidence of penalty or retribution for when this occurs. As I mentioned above, Natural Law can be sidestepped but it cannot be fooled. This would entail that there is more to the function of sex rather than the recreation of life (also see my example with artificial insemination in Post #30).

[quote]Revprodeji writes: In that there are built-in side effects because our creator designed a world that works in balance. Does that make sense?[/quote]
What are these built-in side effects that you speak of?

[quote]Revprodeji writes: What? the bold 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.[/quote]

It took me awhile to find this (it was buried within my computer) but maybe this will help.

[color="#000080"]THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF



This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:

a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.

[color="#FF0000"]b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created [b](poster's note: or infused) [/b]until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).[/color]

c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.



Comment

- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.

- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.

- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.

PHILOSOPHIC THEORIES



Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.



Comment

While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.

[color="#FF0000"]Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.[/color]

People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.[/color]

In this above example, the position that I am taking is highlighted in red.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: 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?[/quote]

These are all good questions and I am not sure if I have the understanding to answer them all but I think that soul introduction may have something to do with the subject of existing independently (not biologically connected) to the parent. This belief can be expanded to the theory that the mother and the child’s soul cannot occupy the same body.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1388095' date='Sep 18 2007, 05:39 PM']You have experienced and/or observed a soul that wanted a physical incarnation as well as the soul choosing that? Sir, this makes no sense.[/quote]
LOL, in this case no. Experience, reasoning and observation are the ways that I conclude my beliefs. I have given this matter much thought but I do not think it will be resolved unless I receive more evidence and understanding.

[carrdero]

[quote]Anamoly writes: Oh yeah. In my next life, I want to come to earth as a woman and live in the Sudan and be raped to death in front of my family. That sounds 'X-Treme'.[/quote]

I assure you that the Natural Laws of sex and death will still apply.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1388396' date='Sep 18 2007, 10:48 PM']Or be incarnated as a tapeworm living in someone's gut, or maybe a disease-causing bacteria . . .
Sounds like great fun, and a "fulfilling experience"![/quote]
I wouldn't knock the experience until you have tried it. Remember, no one is forcing you to reincarnate into the existence of a tapeworm, this is an experience you must choose for yourself.
[quote]Socrates writes: This kind of completely irrational carp is why I gave up attempting to reason with Carderro long ago - he is utterly immune to any kind of logic or rational or coherent thought whatsoever.[/quote]
Be honest now Socrates, you gave up reasoning with carrdero not because he was illogical or irrational but because it did not appeal or agree with your faith. We also discussed why people would attend Barry Manilow concerts. You and I may not enjoy Barry Manilow and we may not understand the logic or rational appeal of why someone would go to Barry Manilow concerts but they do go, sometimes religiously.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[imogen]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388501' date='Sep 19 2007, 11:53 AM']Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law because there is no evidence of penalty or retribution for when this occurs.[/quote]

why isnt homosexuality a violation of Natural Law? homosexual activity does not fulfil the natural purpose of sex...for reproduction and is therefore unnatural

[carrdero]

[quote]Eperez874 writes: St. Thomas held that an embryo does not have a soul until several weeks into the pregnancy.[/quote]

This is also an interesting belief.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='imogen' post='1388506' date='Sep 19 2007, 06:30 AM']why isnt homosexuality a violation of Natural Law? homosexual activity does not fulfil the natural purpose of sex...for reproduction and is therefore unnatural[/quote]
I would probably agree that homosexuality may fall into the catagory of being Unnatural but even though it may be Unnatural it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law. A good example of this would be eye or sight correction. Eye glasses and contact lenses are very Unnatural, yet they exist and are permitted as normal (and in most cases necessary).

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[cmotherofpirl]

[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]
That makes no sense, what you think the soul is just hanging aroung the birth canal waiting for a chance to enter the body?? You think preemies get their soul before full terms? That is totally illogical.

A HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg join and immediately make a HUMAN being. Not maybe a human being, nor a fish or a puppy. HUMAN DNA makes humans right from the start.

[imogen]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388508' date='Sep 19 2007, 12:35 PM']I would probably agree that homosexuality may fall into the catagory of being Unnatural but even though it may be Unnatural it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law. A good example of this would be eye or sight correction. Eye glasses and contact lenses are very Unnatural, yet they exist and are permitted as normal (and in most cases necessary).[/quote]

yes these are necessary and serve a purpose....to correct impaired vision
however i dont think homosexuality can fall into the same category of unnaturalness as homosexuality doesnt serve the purpose sex is intended for....anyway can contact lenses be deemed as a moral dilemna?

Edited September 19, 2007 by imogen

[carrdero]

[quote]Cmotherofpearl writes: That makes no sense, what you think the soul is just hanging aroung the birth canal waiting for a chance to enter the body??[/quote]
I don’t believe that the soul is hanging around the birth canal waiting to enter anymore than I believe it is hanging around the entrance of a another tunnel waiting for death (though the comparisons are interesting).
[quote]Cmotherofpearl writes: You think preemies get their soul before full terms?[/quote]
I believe if they are birthed and are disconnected and living independently of the parent, the body has received a soul.
[quote]Cmotherofpearl writes: A HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg join and immediately make a HUMAN being. Not maybe a human being, nor a fish or a puppy. HUMAN DNA makes humans right from the start.[/quote]
I think human DNA is a physical fingerprint and is part of the Natural biological process of forming a human but the soul seems to be the spiritual fingerprint (the individual).

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='imogen' post='1388514' date='Sep 19 2007, 07:00 AM']yes these are necessary and serve a purpose....to correct impaired vision
however i dont think homosexuality can fall into the same category of unnaturalness as homosexuality doesnt serve the purpose sex is intended for....[/quote]
Homosexuals would reason that it is necessary for them to express and extend their love to their partner and to show and appreciate each others companionship. This is also a valid purpose for sex.
[quote]Imogen writes: anyway can contact lenses be deemed as a moral dilemna?[/quote]
The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have placed upon it.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388501' date='Sep 19 2007, 05:53 AM']I personally would not classify homosexuality as Natural but I would not go as far to imply it is a violation or that it is wrong. Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law because there is no evidence of penalty or retribution for when this occurs. As I mentioned above, Natural Law can be sidestepped but it cannot be fooled. This would entail that there is more to the function of sex rather than the recreation of life (also see my example with artificial insemination in Post #30).

What are these built-in side effects that you speak of?
It took me awhile to find this (it was buried within my computer) but maybe this will help.[/quote]

ok, take an island. Put a bunch of homosexuals on the island to live as their own society. Come back in 2 generations and tell me what happened. The society died off because the natural function of sex was extremely perverted. The natural side effect is the people dying off. No man+women=no next generation. Sounds like a rather extreme side effect


[quote name='carrdero' post='1388507' date='Sep 19 2007, 06:30 AM']This is also an interesting belief.[/quote]

Thomas did not understand the concept of physical conception as we do. I also feel these quotes are often taken out of context. Thomas was not a medical expert.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388508' date='Sep 19 2007, 06:35 AM']I would probably agree that homosexuality may fall into the catagory of being Unnatural but even though it may be Unnatural it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law. A good example of this would be eye or sight correction. Eye glasses and contact lenses are very Unnatural, yet they exist and are permitted as normal (and in most cases necessary).[/quote]

Eye glasses are a foreign object implicated to correct something that in nature is not working properly. Homosexuality takes a natural thing and perverts it beyond any of its natural function. You lose the procreative aspect, but also the nuclear family bind that has been the keystone of human society for all known time. Eye glasses do not violate natural law.

Your understanding of natural law seems very off. Where did you learn it from?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388516' date='Sep 19 2007, 07:12 AM']Homosexuals would reason that it is necessary for them to express and extend their love to their partner and to show and appreciate each others companionship. This is also a valid purpose for sex.[/quote]

I am sure a pedophile would say the same thing. A murder would say he needs to kill to fill his need. An alcoholic would need another drink.

You can not grab one aspect of sex and say it is valid when it throws away all the other aspects. Also, can you really call it sex when physiologically it is not using sexual body parts? Medically he might as well be masterbaiting. It is just creative mutual masterbation. Tell them to make a baby and get back to me.


[quote]The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have placed upon it.[/quote]

Same with murders, Child sex abusers, rapists, heck. Lets throw hitler in there.

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes:ok, take an island. Put a bunch of homosexuals on the island to live as their own society. Come back in 2 generations and tell me what happened. The society died off because the natural function of sex was extremely perverted. The natural side effect is the people dying off. No man+women=no next generation. Sounds like a rather extreme side effect[/quote]

Your example though very hypothetical is unrealistic. Many homosexuals have no desire to be sent to an island or to segregrate themselves from society and every homosexual realizes that they cannot reproduce children and even if the gay men did cross over to the other side of the island to copulate with the lesbians for population purposes, many of them would not give birth to children just to raise them homosexual. Relax, homosexuality is not a threat to anyone.

[quote]Revprodeji writes:Eye glasses are a foreign object implicated to correct something that in nature is not working properly.

Homosexuality takes a natural thing and perverts it beyond any of its natural function.[/quote]

Everyone keeps saying this but no one can give me examples of how it violates Natural Law and if it is such a violation of Natural Law, what Natural Law is doing is to prevent or correct further occurences.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: You lose the procreative aspect, but also the nuclear family bind that has been the keystone of human society for all known time.[/quote]

What if one doesn’t want a family? What if one cannot have a family? What if one doesn’t want to get married? What if one cannot find a date? What of pregnancies out of wedlock? The concepts and ideals of a realistic family are constantly being updated daily, There is no all-familiar pattern to conducting a successful family life.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: Eye glasses do not violate natural law.[/quote]
Either does homosexuality.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: Your understanding of natural law seems very off. Where did you learn it from?[/quote]
I read things.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: I am sure a pedophile would say the same thing.[/quote]
When I am discussing homosexuality (or any acts of sex) it is within consent.
[quote]Revprodeji writes: A murder would say he needs to kill to fill his need.[/quote]
Apples and pears.
[quote]Revprodeji writes: An alcoholic would need another drink.[/quote]
Blood and oranges