Abortion and DUI

[Doc_Keele]

Obviously. Would you mind helping me understanding it?

How so?

Princeton defines manslaughter as “homicide without malice aforethought”.

Manslaughter is unlawful killing. In my jurisdiction, there is unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. No need for a “purposeful” act necessarily. If there’s no “malice aforethought”, how can it automatically be “purposeful”???

I was contrasting a freak accident with homicide, although manslaughter could, as I have contended, be due to an accident.

 

[davidv]

Manslaughter is unlawful killing. In my jurisdiction, there is unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. No need for a “purposeful” act necessarily. If there’s no “malice aforethought”, how can it automatically be “purposeful”???

Purposeful is not the point. An intentional act (though no intending death), a beating for instance, which results in the death of the victim = manslaughter.

I was contrasting a freak accident with homicide, although manslaughter could, as I have contended, be due to an accident.

There is no such contrast in the example I provided.

Just as there is no contrast between the spiritual death due to mortal sin, whether there is a difference in degrees or not.

The only difference is, that in mortal sin, the victim and perpetrator are one and the same.

 

[flyingfish]

And you just made a statement in support of it not being necessary for contraception to be needed in the first place. Thanks…

The fact would remain in place, they could no longer just think of sex as being something to do anytime, anywhere, they would be forced to take a much more conscience roll along when and how it’s done. No more getting loaded in some bar and going home with some stranger, surely we’d be forced to move away from our present “hook up” mentality that’s so much the norm in secular society.

I don’t think one logically follows from the other.

In reading posts on these forums, NFP doesn’t work for everyone. Some women seem to have hormonal issues that makes NFP fail for them, or requires to abstain for all but a few days a month.

Some women also feel desire at the fertile times, and not at other times, which makes NFP very impractical for them.

I also think that a woman on NFP could similarly monitor her fertility and sleep around with random men from bars if she so chose to. You might say STD’s are a deterrent, but condoms don’t protect against the most common STD’s like hpv and herpes.

I don’t agree with you that hooking up is the norm in our society. If you look at the average number of partners for women in their life times, it’s in the single digits. The kind of thing you get if a woman has sex with her long term boyfriends.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Purposeful is not the point. An intentional act (though no intending death), a beating for instance, which results in the death of the victim = manslaughter

It’s you that mentioned “purposeful”. You’re still wrong sadly as omissions can result in manslaughter.

There is no such contrast in the example I provided

Don’t even know what point you’re trying to make here.

Just as there is no contrast between the spiritual death due to mortal sin, whether there is a difference in degrees or not.

The only difference is, that in mortal sin, the victim and perpetrator are one and the same.

Still baffled.

I have already explained that the consequences bear no relation to the moral culpability of the actor.

 

[prodigalson12]

Wonderful piece of wishful thinking. Not backed up by real life tho:thumbsup:

You taken any history classes some time in your life buddy??? We have advanced medical sciences at our disposal that put any other generation to total, complete, not even remotely in the same league as us, ability wise, yet here we are with this “HUGE” development of social diseases and abortions…sure, real life, don’t even use that argument with me buddy…

 

[prodigalson12]

I don’t think one logically follows from the other.

In reading posts on these forums, NFP doesn’t work for everyone. Some women seem to have hormonal issues that makes NFP fail for them, or requires to abstain for all but a few days a month.

Some women also feel desire at the fertile times, and not at other times, which makes NFP very impractical for them.

I also think that a woman on NFP could similarly monitor her fertility and sleep around with random men from bars if she so chose to. You might say STD’s are a deterrent, but condoms don’t protect against the most common STD’s like hpv and herpes.

I don’t agree with you that hooking up is the norm in our society. If you look at the average number of partners for women in their life times, it’s in the single digits. The kind of thing you get if a woman has sex with her long term boyfriends.

Ok, we’ll start out with hormonal issues. Prescription meds, food, exercise, stress, etc. all add up to that element in huge ways, don’t take care of the body, guess what, stuff is not going to work right, as planned and designed. We were not born with a remote control in our hand, and a cell do call into the pizza delivery place, if you opt to go against what you are made for, then you will face physical repercussions. I know, yes, I know, someone will step in, talk about a lot of genetic problems, and yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but, man, look at the men and women “enhancement” meds and stuff that exist, does this not show what’s going on is bad, so the norm, nfp is going to have some issues to that regard, it’s geared towards people that are actually taking care of themselves, not trying to kill themselves, and this should be a warning here guys…

The norm of society these days, at least when I go out and see what’s going on, on the weekends, wow, not good people, I’m a bit older then you fish, that’s clear, and it’s good you and I are talking, I so hope you don’t have to face the same troubles I did, with my youth, learning stuff the hard way, and like you, I questioned and prodded like crazy…I still finally came up with the final truth…, yet I’m still learning regardless.

 

[davidv]

It’s you that mentioned “purposeful”. You’re still wrong sadly as omissions can result in manslaughter.

Are you even trying to understand me?

Don’t even know what point you’re trying to make here.

Still baffled.

I have already explained that the consequences bear no relation to the moral culpability of the actor.

But you explained it incorrectly. Morality is determine by three things:

1. the object
2. the intention
3. the circumstances

 

[Doc_Keele]

Are you even trying to understand me?

I understand you completely, you just happen to be wrong.

But you explained it incorrectly. Morality is determine by three things:

1. the object
2. the intention
3. the circumstances

Well I disagree with that. That’s the Catholic Church’s model due to their deontological approach.

 

[davidv]

I understand you completely, you just happen to be wrong.

I don’t believe you because you misrepresent what i wrote.

Well I disagree with that.

Why do you disagree?

That’s the Catholic Church’s model due to their deontological approach.

What do you mean by deontogical? And, what is wrong with that approach?

 

[Doc_Keele]

I don’t believe you because you misrepresent what i wrote

I haven’t.

Why do you disagree?

Because I don’t agree with the strict deontological approach.

What do you mean by deontogical? And, what is wrong with that approach?

There’s the deontological approach and the consequentialist/utilitarian approach to ethics. I favour versions of consequentialism eg rule consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc. Neither can be proven to be corrrect as such.

 

[davidv]

I haven’t.

Because I don’t agree with the strict deontological approach.

Why don’t you agree? (your response below doesn’t tell me)

There’s the deontological approach and the consequentialist/utilitarian approach to ethics. I favour versions of consequentialism eg rule consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc. Neither can be proven to be corrrect as such.

So, why does your preference trump the Churchs?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Why don’t you agree? (your response below doesn’t tell me)

So, why does your preference trump the Churchs?

As I said, none of the approaches including the many variants of deontologicalism and consequentialims/utilitarianism are without problems, and none of them can be proven by formal argument to be “right”. This is true for the Church’s chosen approach, so what basis would you say that the Church’s preference trumps mine?

 

[davidv]

As I said, none of the approaches including the many variants of deontologicalism and consequentialims/utilitarianism are without problems, and none of them can be proven by formal argument to be “right”. This is true for the Church’s chosen approach, so what basis would you say that the Church’s preference trumps mine?

The basis for the Church’s preference is:

Church is the Body of Christ
And as such, cannot err in teaching us about faith an morals.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The basis for the Church’s preference is:

Church is the Body of Christ
And as such, cannot err in teaching us about faith an morals.

“Because we said so”
Fideism surely?

 

[oldsinnner]

DUI is a modern problem. The Jews didn’t flee Egypt in Toyotas. Drunkeness is a sin. It doesn’t matter what you’re doing at the time.

 

[davidv]

“Because we said so”
Fideism surely?

Strawman. Where is it stated this because it says so?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Strawman. Where is it stated this because it says so?

Not a strawman at all. You provided no evidence for choosing the Church’s position except faith in the Church essentially. The Church says it, so you believe it. How does the Church justify its position? Or doesn’t it matter to you?

 

[davidv]

Not a strawman at all. You provided no evidence for choosing the Church’s position except faith in the Church essentially. The Church says it, so you believe it.

It was a strawman because the none of the teachings of the Church are taught as “just because she said so”. Just because I didn’t recite them doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t have well thought out reasons for all her teachings.

How does the Church justify its position?

With reason.

Or doesn’t it matter to you?

Why do you think it doesn’t?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I’ve noticed that a lot of women that get abortions often say it was because the pregnancy was unintended and unexpected. This got me thinking; most people know drinking and driving is dangerous, yet many do it anyway. If someone got drunk and got into an accident, what are the odds he/she would be exonerated by saying that it was unintentional even though he/she already knew the consequences of drinking and driving? With pregnancy, how can a woman say a pregnancy is unexpected if she engages in sexual activity knowing full well that sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy. Even if there was protection, they’re not 100%. What a double standard society has

false analogy
drunk driving is illegal even if you don’t have an accident.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I just disagree, contraception is our friend. If we stopped making sex so taboo it would be seen for what it is - a private act of bonding to another.

Ahhh!! This is what we say when we have no grasp of what something promoted by the world can truly do to us. A lot of forms of contraception are abortifacients. Do you know what that means? It means it is just as good as getting an abortion. When you use these forms of BC you are basically taking that little human being that already has it’s gender, eye color, and a lot more encoded in it’s DNA and ending it’s chance to live.

What gave you an idea that contraception is “our friend?” Is something friendly when it takes away unity from the spouses? Takes the natural beauty that is pro-creation away from human beings made in God’s image?