Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[thessalonian]

But Cardy,

My point above went right over your head. If YOUR belief is only in the capacity of your human brain, which you admit is severely deficient to know whether something is harmful to us or not, especially when there is evidence to the contrary, (higher suicieds in gays, std's, etc) then why on earth would you tell someone, even as an opinion that something is not harmful? Some of the glasses of "water" that your passing out are bound to contain some poison, though you cannot see it. The only reason one might do this is personal pride in his own thinking. When we realize that we are closer to an ant with regard to the workings of nature than to God (or do you claim to possess in your brain cells more than 1 percent of the knowledge of earth and history and science and humanity), I would think a little humility might work it's way thru the neurons inside that head.

By the way, I am debating. Just not what you want to debate.

Blessings

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388992' date='Sep 20 2007, 09:54 AM']Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.[/quote]Debate requires communication. Dude, this is how the communication game is played. Use the same definitions for the same words as the people around you are using, otherwise you are speaking in a different language. Natual Law is a concept that is used to evaluate ethical choices. Some things are self evidently 'right' or 'wrong'. The concept of Natual Law is not negotiable, as you would have to convince human civilization a new meaning for the term. Come up with your own term or state you don't ascribe to the concept of Natural Law.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388992' date='Sep 20 2007, 08:54 AM']My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.[/quote]

If any of your beliefs had more basis in them than a kid thinking a monster was under his bed then we could debate. But you are not using knowledge, observations or experiences. You are imposing yourself as the authority and then telling us to argue with your authority. If you think the sky is pink and cant back it up, cant give evidence. heck, even still a term like neuroimmunology. So then when we are arguing "no-a pink sky is not an auto-immune issue" you can argue back cause you changed the term.

This is not a debate. You have never addressed an isssue, and you refuse to.

[carrdero]

[quote]Thessalonian writes: My point above went right over your head. If YOUR belief is only in the capacity of your human brain, which you admit is severely deficient to know whether something is harmful to us or not, especially when there is evidence to the contrary, (higher suicieds in gays, std's, etc) then why on earth would you tell someone, even as an opinion that something is not harmful?[/quote]

I do not believe that death and disease are tragedies, that they are bad or wrong but that they are part and parcel of this physical existence. One must ask themselves, why are suicide rates higher in gays and are there cures for sexually transmitted diseases? If these are concerns of our society, it is easy for humans to place judgment on these concepts but if we had the answers to these questions and solutions to these concerns would they still be depicted as problems or harmful to humans? If there are permanent medical solutions to herpes and AIDS, would we still be having this debate?

[quote]Thessalonian writes: Some of the glasses of "water" that your passing out are bound to contain some poison, though you cannot see it.[/quote]
Then you don’t’ have to drink or accept this water. That is one of the freedoms to believing. I believe in people. I believe that someday humankind will resolve diseases and deaths and we will learn to understand and comprehend and even tolerate other people’s lifestyles and belief systems. This doesn’t necessarily have to involve pride or faith and I may not even be alive to see this happen but I can assuredly believe it.

[quote]Thessalonian writes: When we realize that we are closer to an ant with regard to the workings of nature than to God (or do you claim to possess in your brain cells more than 1 percent of the knowledge of earth and history and science and humanity), I would think a little humility might work it's way thru the neurons inside that head.[/quote]
When I “look” at GOD, I “look” directly at Him. This is the way I confront any entity. I do not look up at GOD because this will eventually strain my neck. When GOD looks at me, GOD does not look down at me because GOD remembers who I was and where I originally came from. If one thinks of themselves as lowly, than lowly is where you will always find them, if one thinks of themselves as equal, well then “the heavens are the limit” aren’t they?

[carrdero]

[quote]Anamoly writes: Natual Law is a concept that is used to evaluate ethical choices.[/quote]
Human Nature is the Law to evaluate ethical choices and these choices vary from individual to individual. When have you ever witnessed the “winds not blowing” or the clouds “not raining” or the sun “not shining” based on the ethical a moral choices of humans?

[quote]Anamoly writes: Some things are self evidently 'right' or 'wrong'.[/quote]
And “some things” may eventually be corrected through intelliegent manipulation or creation. These manipulations can come through very Unnatural means but one may still be hard pressed to prove them wrong, bad or evil.

[quote]Anamoly writes: The concept of Natual Law is not negotiable, as you would have to convince human civilization a new meaning for the term. Come up with your own term or state you don't ascribe to the concept of Natural Law.[/quote]
Humans by [b][i]their[/i][/b] very behavior do not ascribe to Natural Law, that is why we have air conditioning and umbrellas.

Edited September 22, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes: If any of your beliefs had more basis in them than a kid thinking a monster was under his bed then we could debate.[/quote]
We all have beliefs and we all have to put on the pants of understanding one leg at a time. We all live in the present and we both have experiences and observations that we can draw from our existences. If there is a card that you feel you are holding, that can readily, reasonably resolve this discussion by all means do not hesitate to play it.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: But you are not using knowledge, observations or experiences. You are imposing yourself as the authority and then telling us to argue with your authority.[/quote]
These are my beliefs, these are not my truths. I recognize them as beliefs, I do not accept or trust them as truths. I can only share my beliefs, I cannot impose them. How can any belief hold authority over someone?

[quote]Revprodeji writes: If you think the sky is pink and cant back it up, cant give evidence. heck, even still a term like neuroimmunology. So then when we are arguing "no-a pink sky is not an auto-immune issue" you can argue back cause you changed the term.[/quote]

I think the term and usage of Natural Law was determined and defined before there were even humans existing on this planet to define and discern this for themselves. This is the term that I am trying to express and evaluate. Like I mentioned previously, in determining Natural Law (assuming one believes that there is a programmer behind the program) one must not only evaluate what the original intentions and purpose of the design was but also anticipate and wonder how much space and foresight the creator has given for other entities to creatively effect and build upon this Law.

[i][b]"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of the dream"[/b]
– Gene Wilder from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”[/i]

[color="#FF0000"]Also wanted to extend my apologies to all participating debators for not getting back to you sooner.[/color]

[carrdero]

On an extra note there was a thread that I think might help in this discussion and understanding of Natural Law that Cures Of Ars started entitled “Good=Truth”

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72229"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72229[/url]

Though we did not get into as big of discussion concerning Natural Law, I believe video games provide a valid blueprint to the understanding of Natural Law and how humans interact and effectively relate with it. Whether one is playing a strategy, first person shooter, platformer or RPG, (and even before the player purchases or starts the game) the original programmers effectively outlined the playing universe for the player and what they are allowed to do and cannot do. Also the amount of time other programmers (besides the designers of the game) have devoted to compliment and experiment with the experience (extra maps and skins and other programmable add-ons). Some games even allow codes and leniency for GOD MODE which doesn’t surprise me when we compare Natural Law to our own intelligence and reality.

Edited September 22, 2007 by carrdero

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1390538' date='Sep 22 2007, 07:41 AM']Human Nature is the Law to evaluate ethical choices and these choices vary from individual to individual. When have you ever witnessed the “winds not blowing” or the clouds “not raining” or the sun “not shining” based on the ethical a moral choices of humans?
And “some things” may eventually be corrected through intelliegent manipulation or creation. These manipulations can come through very Unnatural means but one may still be hard pressed to prove them wrong, bad or evil.
Humans by [b][i]their[/i][/b] very behavior do not ascribe to Natural Law, that is why we have air conditioning and umbrellas.[/quote]
I now realize how much of an jerk you intentionally are. Read up a little on Arisototle, Plato, Thomas, and other philosophers and come to realize what Natual Law is, not the Law of Nature. Trying to discuss ethical concepts to you is like trying to explain tennis shoes to a sea slug.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1390553' date='Sep 22 2007, 08:38 AM']I now realize how much of an jerk you intentionally are. Read up a little on Arisototle, Plato, Thomas, and other philosophers and come to realize what Natual Law is, not the Law of Nature.[/quote]

I am familiar with those philosophers that you have referenced but I was just wondering, is there anyone that you could recommend to me that was born after the 20th century?

[quote]Anamoly writes: Trying to discuss ethical concepts to you is like trying to explain tennis shoes to a sea slug.[/quote]
If you want to discuss Human Law (behavior) we can discuss it but it will not be productive if one is trying to shoe horn Natural Law into human judgment and behavior. What a discussion like this will only reveal is that one believes that the creators of Natural Law were human (or behave or have ethical morals like humans) or that humans have invented God (or at least created their version of this BEing based upon their own or someone else's opinions or preferrences), both being conclusions that I do not expect anyone would want to reach.

Edited September 23, 2007 by carrdero

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1391352' date='Sep 23 2007, 06:59 AM']I am familiar with those philosophers that you have referenced but I was just wondering, is there anyone that you could recommend to me that was born after the 20th century?
If you want to discuss Human Law (behavior) we can discuss it but it will not be productive if one is trying to shoe horn Natural Law into human judgment and behavior. What a discussion like this will only reveal is that one believes that the creators of Natural Law were human (or behave or have ethical morals like humans) or that humans have invented God (or at least created their version of this BEing based upon their own or someone else's opinions or preferrences), both being conclusions that I do not expect anyone would want to reach.[/quote]
Dude,
It's impossible to discuss things with someone who is making up their own langauage and cannot communicate with you. Especially you when you have arrogantly decided you are way more intelligent than the rest of humanity and do not need to utilize any human knowledge, thought, or ideas that have been developed over the breadth of human existence. I'm not really interested in playing in your personal fantasy world. The really sad thing is, you're playing an 8 year old's imaginary game, and we're trying to discuss death and life issues. There's a word to describe 'humans' like you, a physically mature person with mature mental facilities, but without the understanding, experience, or ability to comprehend the human society around them. Sociopath.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Anomaly

[eperez874]

it is not the matter what i say it is right that is society's idea but we are getting now off topic
now i do not nkow what homosexuals has to do with this topic.

now try this

"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."
that is not a true theory because there must be right and wrong
trafic lights won't help society to move on it will forever stay red
because we are stopping creation.

what are you saying eperez874 this does not make sense?

yes it does let me explain why?

1-because human is born with a soul there is no such thing as re- encarnation
2- red is forever because once you stop creation of a baby there is no other one that will substitute the same baby.
3- what is unnatural to our bodies is forbidden by God
because we are temple of the holy spirit


now for number 3 (what about the medecines does that count as unnatural because it is man made?) wrong becxause this one has the purpose to save a life. the other is to destroy if you called it a "cell"
or at least stop it which is not a desease.

inside the mother the baby still have's a soul.

[carrdero]

[quote]Esperez874 writes: that is not a true theory because there must be right and wrong
trafic lights won't help society to move on it will forever stay red
because we are stopping creation.[/quote]
The example of traffic lights was the closest human example I can present. True, when traffic lights malfunction someone is usually on loction to repair the problem. The perfection of Natural Law was designed so that it would not have to monitered and would not have to be repaired on the creator’s end. There are not too many human examples that fit this description.

[quote]Esperez874 writes:
1-because human is born with a soul there is no such thing as re- encarnation[/quote]
And what if that soul wants to experience another physical existence after experiencing a human one? I believe the soul was designed to be recycled.

[quote]Esperez874 writes:
2- red is forever because once you stop creation of a baby there is no other one that will substitute the same baby.[/quote]

I may need more clarification about this.

[quote]Esperez874 writes:
3- what is unnatural to our bodies is forbidden by God
because we are temple of the holy spirit[/quote]

There are no indications that when some things that are Unnatural are introduced to some thing that is Natural that it is an offense to GOD. When a man or a woman uses a contraceptive to prevent pregnancy they are not punished or sentenced for going against Nature. There is no force expended in real time to correct, amend or adjust this act against Nature. Human opinion and judgment can place sex contraceptives in the realm of being wrong or incorrect but it is only a human belief. Choosing how and what to believe is part of human nature or behavior.

[quote]Esperez874 writes:
now for number 3 (what about the medecines does that count as unnatural because it is man made?) wrong becxause this one has the purpose to save a life. the other is to destroy if you called it a "cell"
or at least stop it which is not a desease.[/quote]

Medicines are a very good example and one that may explain Natural or Unnatural better. Most medicines are very Unnatural and cause an imbalance to our bodies. I have experienced several cholesterol medicines and many of them seem to make my body feel DISeased. In fact, I do not suffer from cholesterol until I am prescribed these medicines that proclaim to prevent or lower it. My wife just decided to take birth control pills and the change over her personality and emotions has been quite evident. Sometimes medicines can be a constant compromise to what exactly one wants or doesn’t want out of life.

Edited September 24, 2007 by carrdero

[eperez874]

but then it is stoping life from growing with trafic lights theory
"There are no indications that when some things that are Unnatural are introduced to some thing that is Natural that it is an offense to GOD. When a man or a woman uses a contraceptive to prevent pregnancy they are not punished or sentenced for going against Nature. There is no force expended in real time to correct, amend or adjust this act against Nature. Human opinion and judgment can place sex contraceptives in the realm of being wrong or incorrect but it is only a human belief. Choosing how and what to believe is part of human nature or behavior."

of course we GOd punishes for something unnatural rewmeber thou shall not commint adultery nor impure acts and thou shall love thy neighbor as thy self.

then what would be the poiint of loving my neighbor if i suggest a girl to use birth control pills.
please explain.

"And what if that soul wants to experience another physical existence after experiencing a human one? I believe the soul was designed to be recycled."

but how could you say such things don't you belive afterlife
how come i am not my great grandfather if i was then i would know that my name is James Bernal probably i would speak german.
now if i say i belive in that then i dishonor my answersters because i am saying iam them not me.

[carrdero]

[quote]eperez874 writes: inside the mother the baby still have's a soul.[/quote]

I don’t know if you had managed to catch Post #47 or if you may have missed it but it is interesting and important enough to mention again.

[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.

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

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.

Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.

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

The fact is, no one is absolutely sure when the soul becomes part of the living fetus. We can speculate but that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

[quote]eperez874 writes: but then it is stoping life from growing with trafic lights theory[/quote]

It would take an absence of traffic to stop my traffic light theory and too many people really enjoy “driving” and going to other places for that to happen.

[quote]eperez874 writes: of course we GOd punishes for something unnatural rewmeber thou shall not commint adultery nor impure acts and thou shall love thy neighbor as thy self.[/quote]

My father left my mother for the neighbor’s wife. I guess some people express neighborly love differently than others. Though GOD has never directly or indirectly punished my father for this “transgression”, my father’s love for my mother has never diminished.

[quote]eperez874 writes: then what would be the poiint of loving my neighbor if i suggest a girl to use birth control pills.
please explain.[/quote]

I personally would never suggest the practice of taking birth control pills to another woman. I have seen the psychological effects that it has produced with women in my previous REALationships and these side effects were very difficult to deal with. In the case of my wife, she never liked the usage of condoms or other contraceptives plus she had a medical condition where the doctor recommended that the birth control pill would correct this situation and it did.
Medicine really never solves all of one's medical problems; it just trades one problem while introducing one's body to another.
[quote]eperez874 writes: but how could you say such things don't you belive afterlife[/quote]
I do believe in the afterlife, I just do not believe in an afterlife of judgment and sentencing. All souls go to the spiritual realm after death and they can decide to stay in this realm or reincarnate into any other physical existence The choice and the experience is up to the individual and this belief offers the soul another chance to a human physical existence even if there is a fetus that has been scheduled for abortion.

Edited September 25, 2007 by carrdero

[Hashbrowns]

I'm very sorry that I haven't kept up with this debate.

Carrdero, quite honestly your beliefs seem to be a sort of modern paganism.

"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." And who would those beings be, and why would we believe them? Do you consider yourself to be one of them?

"Does Natural Law care that there have been more rules added? In some cases, apparently not."

Thessalonian says "Let me spell it out for you carrderro. You are not God and without him you have no basis for making any kind of a moral judgement, even a neutral one, saying that something is neither good nor bad because you don't know all the consequences. Anything you say is just a guess and what looks like a pure glass of water might have poison in it."

"When I “look” at GOD, I “look” directly at Him. This is the way I confront any entity. I do not look up at GOD because this will eventually strain my neck. When GOD looks at me, GOD does not look down at me because GOD remembers who I was and where I originally came from. If one thinks of themselves as lowly, than lowly is where you will always find them, if one thinks of themselves as equal, well then “the heavens are the limit” aren’t they?" Why are *you* capitalizing God, if you deem yourself to be equal with Him? most cultures don't capitalize "I".

Drink your own poison.

[carrdero]

[quote]Carrdero writes:
"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]
[quote]Hashbrowns writes:Carrdero, quite honestly your beliefs seem to be a sort of modern paganism.
And who would those beings be, and why would we believe them? Do you consider yourself to be one of them?[/quote]

There could be two lines of thought. They could be either creations of GOD or they could be gods that have come into their own existence/awareness by themselves. Both examples would be equal to GOD. These same gods who have helped GOD create could very well have initiated the program to incarnate into a physical existence and could probably be you and/or me,


[quote]Hashbrowns writes: Why are *you* capitalizing God, if you deem yourself to be equal with Him? most cultures don't capitalize "I".[/quote]

I capitalize the word GOD to separate GOD as the first entity who existed. There have and will be other entities who claim to be God but when I speak of GOD, I am specifically referring to the first entity that existed.

Edited September 26, 2007 by carrdero

[thessalonian]

I come to the conclusion that carredero is just here to try and impress himself and/or us with BS. . I can't believe that he doesn't realize that the chances of what he believes (being unlike the beleifs of almost anyone else in the world) being true is so close to nil as to be not worth the time of day. Or maybe he's just yanking everybody's chain.

[Aloysius]

carrderro, you forgot the simpler option that is completely non-referential to God.

I believe that the soul is the principal of life, because "soul" comes from "anima" meaning "animating principal". Thus, when something is alive, it has a soul. When something is human, it has a human soul.

An embryo is both human and alive, it has a human soul.

A soul is not some ghost-in-the-machine; whenever the body is alive, that means it has a "soul"; there is no need to go into the question of whether a "soul" is even non-material or not.

Any beleif in a non-material soul which is not present during some period while the embryo/fetus is alive is a false beleif about souls. There is no evidence that any such "soul" like that exists at all, I don't beleive it does. Sure, the soul is an immaterial principal; it is evidenced solely by the presence of life.

Aquinas held that it started out from conception as a plant with a plant soul; turned into an animal with an animal soul; and finally became human with the infusion of a human soul. Modern science proves him wrong (his error was only in not having enough scientific information); we know that an embryo has human DNA, with all the information about that particular human, and that at no time is it either plant or animal, its DNA proves it is human. Thus it must have a human soul from the very moment it is alive.

One might say: oh, the sperm itself is alive. I answer that the sperm, containing the DNA from the man alone, is not a unique life but part of the man. The embryo, having unique human DNA and also being alive must also have a unique human soul, as the definition of soul is "the principal of life"

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1393502' date='Sep 26 2007, 03:33 PM']One might say: oh, the sperm itself is alive. I answer that the sperm, containing the DNA from the man alone, is not a unique life but part of the man. The embryo, having unique human DNA and also being alive must also have a unique human soul, as the definition of soul is "the principal of life"[/quote]This helped a thought generate in my feeble mind.

Considering all the natural and biological obstacles involved with one particular sperm making the journey to find a viable egg, penetrate the outershell, disolve, and then have the DNA from two people combine to form a "U"nique DNA sequence for a new person, then according to carrdero's 'natual law', at that time a unique creation is made. We can't determine if soul is created or imbued or not. It is beyond our ability to determine that there is no soul, just as it's beyond our ability to determine a soul is there.

Just from the point of view that we are 'intelligent children' playing at things we don't completely understand, we do have enough intelligence to admit we can't be sure that life (or animiation via a soul) does not occur at that moment. Why wouldn't it? Is the soul limited by number of cells? Is the soul determined by eye tissue, or does it only dwell in the brain and it's brain tissue? Why not animation of a soul at the instance that 'natural law' lined up in exactly the right way, right hormones, right PH, right enzymes, right proteins, that allows two seperate cells from two separate people combine with all the genetic code needed to create a new "U"niqe person.

(I thought carrdero would like the "U"nique word highlighted like that to emphasis the "you" in "U"nique. Clever, isn't it?)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1393635' date='Sep 26 2007, 04:34 PM'](I thought carrdero would like the "U"nique word highlighted like that to emphasis the "you" in "U"nique. Clever, isn't it?)[/quote]
Actually, I prefer YOUnique as it helps more clearly emphasize the "YOU."

After all, NO-thing bEATS w(ear)d SPELL-ing and CAP-IT-ALL-ization four May-KING COMpleat non-CENTS t(w)o BE(E) cLEVER and YOUnique.