Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[Aloysius]

Again you miss the point: I'm not talking about my belief in the soul. For the sake of argument: say I don't believe in the soul. My argument is based on pure observational science, it is you who make unfounded metaphysical claims.

So here, let me take this position, as you seem to continue to misunderstand me and mis-characterize my claims as being on par with your own. There is no soul. There is only life, humanity, DNA, and science to deal with (after all, since we are talking about policy that should be applicable universally to every human, we should not bring in indefensible metaphysical claims). The evidence shows clearly that there is unique human life based upon DNA which determines the brain structure from the moment of conception.

Just because my metaphysical understanding of the immaterial soul is inseparable from this science (and thus, I propose, more in line with experiential reality than your wild fantasies about unproven ghost-beings... or BEings haha) does not make my position any less based upon science.

My position is based upon science, yours is based upon belief. In fact, it's not just for the sake of argument that I say "there is no soul"; it is indeed what I hold to be true based upon your definition of "soul". There is no soul; prove me wrong. You could prove me wrong if you defined "soul" as the "principal of life" the way I define it; but since you do not, since you define "soul" in terms of a faulty metaphysical non-reasonable assertion that ghosts inhabit flesh, you have no evidence that a "soul" exists as you define it. I have clear cut evidence that a "soul" exists as I define it, though.

Our two positions are not even on the same playing field, we do not have two different beliefs about souls, we are talking about completely different things when we use that word "soul". I reject your unsubstantiated claim of the existence of ghosts inhabiting human bodies, I believe instead that human beings are alive and human. You see? I have a belief which IS indeed provable, you have a position which is NOT provable. We do not both have equally unprovable beliefs, as you are conjecturing.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: So here, let me take this position, as you seem to continue to misunderstand me and mis-characterize my claims as being on par with your own. There is no soul. There is only life, humanity, DNA, and science to deal with (after all, since we are talking about policy that should be applicable universally to every human, we should not bring in indefensible metaphysical claims). The evidence shows clearly that there is unique human life based upon DNA which determines the brain structure from the moment of conception.[/quote]

Okay, I am following you so far but I am unclear about what position you are now taking? Is this still an abortion issue? Are you taking the position of someone who agrees that abortion is wrong? What are your reasons for this?

[Aloysius]

because you are putting an end to a unique human life. all aspects of a human being which are observable and provable are present in the embryo, ergo, it is wrong to end its life through violent surgical procedures the same way it is wrong to end any human life through violence

[carrdero]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1400302' date='Oct 10 2007, 05:48 AM']because you are putting an end to a unique human life. all aspects of a human being which are observable and provable are present in the embryo, ergo, it is wrong to end its life through violent surgical procedures the same way it is wrong to end any human life through violence[/quote]
What are you basing this information on?

Edited October 10, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

Which part do you contest?

That it is alive? Need I even answer that one?
That it is human? DNA is pretty definitive- it is human.
That it is unique? DNA is pretty definitive- it is unique
That the DNA code determines its every detail, down to the brain structure? That's just what DNA does, it contains all the genetic information necessary to form the unique charecteristics of the individual. Every act of growth after the conception is dictated by the genetic "orders" contained in the DNA code, its eye color, its blood type, whether it will have genetic diseases, whether it will be tall or short (of course, many of these things can be inturrupted/corrupted/changed due to circumstances during the growth), how big its brain will be, et cetera... these things do not just srpout up spontaneously out of thin air- the DNA code contains the information about the unique individual that is necessary; that's why someone can inherit psychological traits from their parents even if they are not raised by their parents-- 23 chromosomes from mom and 23 chromosomes from dad got together and formed just exactly what the template would be for the entire body, including the brain, of the new person. the template of these things is decided at conception already; experience throughout their gestation through their birth and well into their adult life will add major input into these templates, maybe even to the point of defying them/going against them. not everything is determined, and the line cannot ever really be definitively drawn to where nature ends and where nurture begins, but we do know that a unique template of a unique brain exists as "orders" in the DNA code. that's just basic genetics, if it were not true, psychological traits would not pass from parents to children who were not raised by their parents.

[carrdero]

[quote]Which part do you contest?
Aloysus writes: That it is human? DNA is pretty definitive- it is human.
That it is unique? DNA is pretty definitive- it is unique
That the DNA code determines its every detail, down to the brain structure? That's just what DNA does, it contains all the genetic information necessary to form the unique…..[/quote]

Yes I am familiar with the scientific evidence that you have provided, thank you. I was specifically referring to this part.

[quote]Aloysius writes: it is wrong to end its life through violent surgical procedures[/quote]

What information are you basing this on?

Edited October 10, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

Basic Morality: thou shalt not kill. It is wrong to end a life with any violence, including violent surgical procedures. no one has the moral right to end another's life... and that shouldn't be some novel concept that I have to prove; rather, anyone who would contest it must establish what gives one human being the right to end another human being's life (this can be established in cases like self-defense or even, to a certain extent, capital punishment; but it cannot be established of any innocent human life who is not maliciously threatening another's life)

Do you mean, why do I call them "violent surgical procedures" perhaps? well, I have seen the videos taken inside of abortion clinics and heard the testimonies of former abortion doctors who discuss in great detail how they had to count each limb and organ and bone to make sure they had gotten every last torn-apart shred of the infant out of the woman (so it would not cause infection)

But any attempt to cease a life is "violent" by the definition of the word "violence" even if you ignore the bloody limbs that are ripped apart and sucked out of the mother's body.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: So here, let me take this position, as you seem to continue to misunderstand me and mis-characterize my claims as being on par with your own. There is no soul. There is only life, humanity, DNA, and science to deal with (after all, since we are talking about policy that should be applicable universally to every human, we should not bring in indefensible metaphysical claims).[/quote]

[quote]Aloysius writes: Basic Morality: thou shalt not kill. It is wrong to end a life with any violence, including violent surgical procedures. no one has the moral right to end another's life... and that shouldn't be some novel concept that I have to prove[/quote]

If you are interested, we can discuss basic morality in a moment. Let’s just stay with your position a little while longer and discuss what is provable (as opposed to unprovable) for now, I feel it is important that we do not misunderstand each other.

The next question I would ask you is:

By observable and/or scientific evidence, who can we claim are the creators of babies? In other words, what I am asking is; where do babies come from?

[Hashbrowns]

Let's take this to the "got a question for you" board. This doesn't really belong with the topic of abortion.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1400530' date='Oct 10 2007, 08:06 PM']If you are interested, we can discuss basic morality in a moment. Let’s just stay with your position a little while longer and discuss what is provable (as opposed to unprovable) for now, I feel it is important that we do not misunderstand each other.

The next question I would ask you is:

By observable and/or scientific evidence, who can we claim are the creators of babies? In other words, what I am asking is; where do babies come from?[/quote]
The sexusal act of the parents.. snicker snicker.

The originators of a life do not have the right to end that life, however (unless you get into ultimate cosmic originator of existence itself, which is a whole other issue) Nor do the caregivers who help that life to grow. At any stage in the development.

As regards discussing basic morality, without going too far into it, would you contest that "thou shalt not kill" is basic morality? I'm not talking high end moral theology here, this is basic natural law: respect for the natural right of every human life to live that life.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: The originators of a life do not have the right to end that life,[/quote]
What information are you basing this on?

[quote]Aloysius writes: As regards discussing basic morality, without going too far into it, would you contest that "thou shalt not kill" is basic morality?[/quote]

My belief is that it is but it is not our beliefs that we are now offering as evidence.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I'm not talking high end moral theology here, this is basic natural law: respect for the natural right of every human life to live that life.[/quote]

As I have explained earlier in this thread, when it comes to regarding the start of life, the halting, detouring and the ending of life, from the evidence and experiences that I have observed, Natural Law holds no such opinion or judgment. Let us not dwell on this for the moment for such is a belief of mine and we are only considering factual evidence at this moment.

Edited October 11, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

What information are you basing this on?

Natural Law, which is real evidence, shows that every human life has a natural right to continue living, and that no human being has the right to end another human being's life. It is based upon reason: a human life would continue naturally if no violent means stop it from continuing, the natural inclination of all is the continuation of living. It is unnatural to attempt to cease that continuation, not only unnatural but contrary to nature. The natural survival instinct and the biological processes of continuation of life dictate that each human body is built, according to natural law, in order to sustain its own life, no other human body may, according to nature, stop that continuation. The only time when it becomes natural to do so is when one human body must do so in order to continue living itself.

The parental instinct extropolates this further to say that parents have a natural obligation to give care and sustinence to their offspring, and not only do they not have the right to violently end the life of their offspring as was established previously for any human being, they also do not have the right to withhold sustinence and caregiving for their offspring.

This is culturally universal, and cultural exceptions only prove the rule; for in cultures where child sacrifice is practiced, it is considered something so terrible that it is done in order to take the place of some other terrible cosmic event, to supplicate a god's wrath by saying "here, I shall do this terrible thing myself, so that you need not do anything terrible to my whole society". Likewise, general killing of other humans is only socially acceptable in all cultures when that is done as a means for the continuate of one's own life or the lives of one's whole culture, the survival instinct.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: Natural Law, which is real evidence, shows that every human life has a natural right to continue living, and that no human being has the right to end another human being's life.[/quote]

So in your experience and through your observations what evidence can you offer about the measures or standards, penalties or consequences that Natural Law enacts to prevent or thwart the premature ending or the continuation of life and are you aware of the Truth that everyone has to die and that everyone has to die in some way?

[quote]Aloysius writes:It is based upon reason:[/quote]
Reason or opinion?
[quote]Aloysius writes:a human life would continue naturally if no violent means stop it from continuing, the natural inclination of all is the continuation of living.[/quote]

So accidents, Natural disasters, diseases have no factual basis in Natural Law?

[quote]Aloysius writes:It is unnatural to attempt to cease that continuation, not only unnatural but contrary to nature.[/quote]
What information are you basing this on? Is this an accepted standard?

[quote]Aloysius writes:The natural survival instinct and the biological processes of continuation of life dictate that each human body is built, according to natural law, in order to sustain its own life, no other human body may, according to nature, stop that continuation. The only time when it becomes natural to do so is when one human body must do so in order to continue living itself.[/quote]

And how does this Natural Law compare to your own experiences and observations. Is it evidenced as a Law that is actually efficient and in effect?

[quote]Aloysius writes:The parental instinct extropolates this further to say that parents have a natural obligation to give care and sustinence to their offspring, and not only do they not have the right to violently end the life of their offspring as was established previously for any human being, they also do not have the right to withhold sustinence and caregiving for their offspring.

This is culturally universal, and cultural exceptions only prove the rule; for in cultures where child sacrifice is practiced, it is considered something so terrible that it is done in order to take the place of some other terrible cosmic event, to supplicate a god's wrath by saying "here, I shall do this terrible thing myself, so that you need not do anything terrible to my whole society"[/quote]

Aloysius, are you aware that in some places that the right to choose to have an abortion is Common Law and that this law in some cases exceeds this Natural Law that you have proposed?

Edited October 11, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

"Natural Law" does not mean that everyone agrees. In traditional societies, the idea of abortion was based upon the idea that the fetus was not human or that it was not alive. Science has proven these things to be false. Aquinas held that we went from plant bodies to animal bodies to human bodies, based on Aristotelian Science; Christendom once held abortion to be a sexual sin because they did not understand the diference between the fertilized egg (a unique human with 46 chromosomes) and the seed (23 chromosomes of the father). Infanticide, however, is nowhere done lightly; it, along with abortion, was once done as a matter of survival in band-level societies, evidencing what I said about the natural law dictating that the ending of another human life by one human can only be natural when it is part of the continuation of one person's life.

Post-Industrial society cannot evidence whether something is natural law or not, post-industrial society has stepped outside of the rhelm of nature too far to be able to do that; we've gotten to the point of claiming that some people need to surgically alter their gender in order to be more real.

"Natural law" does not mean that everyone agrees, it means that it's written on all men's hearts and on all men's biological realities, that everyone can understand because the reasoning is so basic and in touch with the biological realities of their very bodies.

A body does indeed eventually die of old age, and natural disasters can indeed end a life pre-maturely (note that that is considered pre-mature death, it is not considered natural to humans). What is written into human biology and psychological instinct is that a human body ought to be allowed to live his life up until his body itself (sometimes there are cultural constructs which permit him to end his own life, this is irrelevant to the current discussion) stops sustaining its own life; ie that no other human being has the natural right to intervene in the natural surviving function of another human being's life (except in case of their own survival, or an extrapolated survival of the whole society)

(when I say "natural" I refer to the nature of the human person, I am not referencing forests and animals and earth and whether)

This is not mere opinion, this is all very evidenced reasonable analysis of the biological nature of human bodies and the cross-cultural, even universally cultural, understanding of the inviolable nature of an individual living human being's right to continue living without violent interference from other individual human beings, except when survival dictates its necessity.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: "Natural Law" does not mean that everyone agrees.[/quote]
Okay, so then this is a belief and most likely may not be shared amongst everyone. Maybe we better resign this concept of Natural Law as evidence to the objective reality that we are trying to conclude in the discussion of whether abortion is wrong.


[quote]Aloysius writes: In traditional societies, the idea of abortion was based upon the idea that the fetus was not human or that it was not alive.[/quote]
Yes, and from what I am to understand this tradition and belief continues to this day but let us continue with what we know is evident.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Post-Industrial society cannot evidence whether something is natural law or not, post-industrial society has stepped outside of the rhelm of nature too far to be able to do that; we've gotten to the point of claiming that some people need to surgically alter their gender in order to be more real.[/quote]

This thought processing may have to go the way of our soul discussions since we cannot provide any evidence for it.

[quote]Aloysius writes: (when I say "natural" I refer to the nature of the human person, I am not referencing forests and animals and earth and whether)[/quote]

In future conversations we may have to make these concepts clearer. To my understanding, Natural Law and Human Nature (or behavior) seem to be two different concepts with different objectives to perform.

[quote]Aloysius writes: This is not mere opinion, this is all very evidenced reasonable analysis of the biological nature of human bodies and the cross-cultural, even universally cultural, understanding of the inviolable nature of an individual living human being's right to continue living without violent interference from other individual human beings, except when survival dictates its necessity.[/quote]

I may need you to provide factual evidence for this. In the light of abortion being Common Law in some places, I am not sure that you can make the claim to this as being “universally cultural” or a right of a living human being.

Edited October 11, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

see further on in that post for a discussion of why natural law is not a belief; people can hold contrary opinions, it is just that it is written into human biology; natural law can be understood as observing the biology of the human body and reasoning out what that means about what humans should do and not do. not mere belief, evidenced reasoning.

where abortion is common law, the belief is not that anyone has the right to end the life of another human being, the belief is that it is not human or not alive. I have definitively proven that these beliefs are false; if those places came to agree with those scientific facts, their natural inclination would be to say that the human life cannot be ended except if it is necessary for the survival of the rest of the human lives there; at least so long as they applied everything else in their culture equally to that human life. it is human nature to attempt to form loopholes in one's own line of reasoning when it is convenient, so they might try to excuse it because they are motivated by convenience, but it would be contrary to their culture's view of human life.

there was no "soul" discussion. there was me discussing this, the fact that human beings are alive (which is what I call "having a soul") and you making wild conjectures about fanciful ghosts who inhabit bodies and drive them like cars. we are still in the realm of provable facts, here; natural law is a reasoned discussion about provable facts. it would be in the realm of the soul discussion if I began to say that the spirit of the earth dictates that human beings ought not to kill each other; I have not: I have said that human biology dictates that human beings ought not to kill each other; based upon the fact that each unique human being's body is designed to end its life only by old age; everything else the human body fights against (it even fights against old age as much as possible)

and the sociological discussion of how post-Industrial society does not necessarily represent natural law is social science and clearly provable as well; it's clearly observable, industrial living has detached us from our human nature in our mores, because we cease to be in touch with our own means of subsistence.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: see further on in that post for a discussion of why natural law is not a belief; people can hold contrary opinions, it is just that it is written into human biology;[/quote]

The astounding statistics of both individuals who attempt and/or commit suicide and murder show that not everyone contains or has read this page that you suggest is written into human biology. The value of human life and the survival theories proposed is an opinion, a belief that varies and develops from individual to individual. The example theorized is clearly an example of human behavior and these human performances may have to be rewritten or re-examined.

[quote]Aloysius writes: where abortion is common law, the belief is not that anyone has the right to end the life of another human being, the belief is that it is not human or not alive. I have definitively proven that these beliefs are false;[/quote]

The controversy over abortion falls into the catagories of [i][b]pro-life [/b][/i]versus [i][b]pro-choice[/b]. [/i]Though science has provided evidence that human development begins at fertilization the ethical, moral, philosophical beliefs and values are not founded, are not evidenced and do not necessarily hold much relevance in the decision or discussion of whether parents are fully capable of the responsibility and commitment needed to bring their creation into the outside world. In the case of abortion, this choice will most likely hold a greater weight with the parent who is carrying this infant. If human development was an independent function, totally separate from the necessity of a parent host, we would most likely be having a different discussion.

[quote]Aloysius writes: their natural inclination would be to say that the human life cannot be ended except if it is necessary for the survival of the rest of the human lives there;[/quote]

In order for this to be considered Natural, the inclination would be that humans would not have the choice. That the Laws of Nature would interfere and most likely correct the incorrection and not permit this to happen. And as much as one would like to believe, this is not the case, this is not the Truth and this is not the reality. The concept that I think you may be reaching for is the term of what some people would deem normal or common.

[quote]Aloysius writes: it is human nature to attempt to form loopholes in one's own line of reasoning when it is convenient, so they might try to excuse it because they are motivated by convenience, but it would be contrary to their culture's view of human life.[/quote]

And this may be where some people are finding frustration. They are frustrated because their beliefs and morals on the value of life and living are being rejected by the people who are creating these loopholes. As you may well have experienced, some people are not interested in other peoples views and values or what you and I may understand about life and living. And these values, opinions and judgments do not stop at the womb. One of the most ironic reasonings for people who are pro-life is their inability to carry their cause across to every aspect of life.

I personally have never encountered a person who was pro-life that did not at one moment intentionally remove the life from another physical entity and I have never encountered a society that was for the right of life that has not put judgmental limitations or restricitions on the way others desire to live their lifestyles.

[quote]Aloysius writes:there was no "soul" discussion. there was me discussing this, the fact that human beings are alive (which is what I call "having a soul") and you making wild conjectures about fanciful ghosts who inhabit bodies and drive them like cars. we are still in the realm of provable facts, here; natural law is a reasoned discussion about provable facts.[/quote]

No, there was you expounding scientific evidence for human conception for two pages and then ultimately admitting and plugging what was destined to become your own unproven belief about how humans should behave in what you believe (or would have others believe) to be a “natural” or normal society or world. Not only by denying the reality and the Truth that abortion is evidently permissible but that the right for parents to choose to terminate their own child’s physical existence takes top precedence and priority over anything that expresses ethical, moral and philosophical values. Though this does not conclude that either of us is right (or wrong), it does point out the possibility that there may be no right or wrong solution to the subject of abortion but that it is a matter of personal or individual choice.

[quote]Aloysius writes: it would be in the realm of the soul discussion if I began to say that the spirit of the earth dictates that human beings ought not to kill each other; I have not: I have said that human biology dictates that human beings ought not to kill each other;[/quote]

Human biology dictates no such thing. There is no scientifically founded genetic biological gene or code that anyone has evidenced that prevents humans from commiting murder or determining the value of life.

[quote]Aloysius writes: based upon the fact that each unique human being's body is designed to end its life only by old age; everything else the human body fights against (it even fights against old age as much as possible)[/quote]
Yes and everyone could choose to exist in a secure bubble in a safe and nurturing environment, protected against all the environments and any potential harmful outside influences but then one wouldn’t have to ever leave the womb, would they? Exactly what kind of unreal existence do you think you are implying here Aloysius?

Humans are driven to experiencing and the consequences that come with it.

[quote]Aloysius writes: and the sociological discussion of how post-Industrial society does not necessarily represent natural law is social science and clearly provable as well; it's clearly observable, industrial living has detached us from our human nature in our mores, because we cease to be in touch with our own means of subsistence.[/quote]

And who are we to say that this is not the next step or stage for human nature or development? Some people would consider this evolution. Of course they would be entitled to their belief.

Edited October 12, 2007 by carrdero

[eperez874]

there is a diference between this post and homo sexuality i also made a post long ago about homosexuality. lets keeep it the same topic


now a woman does not have any right to control other lives besides her child but she at all cases cannot control death. only God is allowed because other wise we are playing his creation. wich the punishment would be hell

[Lena]

[quote]only God is allowed because other wise we are playing his creation. wich the punishment would be hell[/quote]

we aren't God, as you said, right? so we can't say the punishment IS hell, but that it could be hell. Yes, abortion is wrong, but to state that someone is going to hell for acting in the place of God is wrong to. Ironical.

[eperez874]

we are getting of topic

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

natural hmmm nbatural acordind to my opponent but for us natural means all acording to Gods will in this case marriage.


now about the embry that does not mean that they do not have a soul they wil lalways have it but what st thomas meant is
they do not have an guardian angel until they are born