Morality without God?

[PRmerger]

Ah, the lack of understanding. If sex is “unitive” and one abstains, then THAT unitive effect is missing.

Sure.

And when one does engage in sex, it must be with both intentions: union and procreation.

 

[PRmerger]

Only according to your value system. Apart the “super-conservative” catholics, everyone saw the “pill” as a Godsend, to allow people to enjoy sex without the unwanted side-effect of pregnancy.

Yes. And we see, sadly, the social deterioration of our culture that has occurred when people believe it is their right to have sex without a baby ever entering the picture.

The majority of the catholics in the US have no problem with contraception.

Sad, but true.

What? Those who do not contracept are also forbidden to divorce. DUH!

Again, your ignorance of Catholicism is astonishing. That wouldn’t necessarily be an issue, since you are not Catholic, but you really ought to remove that part in your signature that proclaims you know what our theology is.

Catholics are not forbidden to divorce. We are forbidden to commit adultery by divorcing and re-marrying.

So what? the majority of the zygotes get flushed out from the women’s system.

Ok.

What does it matter, if a few more do not get implanted?

I suppose it matters to the soul that inhabits that human person that was destroyed by a chemical.

But you are missing a few more excellent methods. Wonderfully unitive sex without vaginal penetration… maybe you heard of them… but again, maybe not.

http://elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

 

[PRmerger]

Are you really unable to comprehend that I said exactly what I meant? If the higher functions of the brain are permanently and irreversibly gone… then there is no person left there. Only the vegetative shell remains. See poor Terry Schiavo. It is not a coincidence that it is called a “permanent vegetative state”.

From a lobotomy? You lose your higher functioning? Lobotomy = vegetative state? Really?

Could you please cite your source for this? Thanks.

 

[Tyrion]

And when one does engage in sex, it must be with both intentions: union and procreation.

Again… ONLY according to the super-conservative catholics. Not even all catholics agree… not all christians agree, much less the abomiable heathens. Is there a rational argument for it? If there is, spell it out. But do not link some long article, get the gist of it and present it in a few points.

Yes. And we see, sadly, the social deterioration of our culture that has occurred when people believe it is their right to have sex without a baby ever entering the picture.

Again… ONLY according to the super-conservative catholics.

Sad, but true.

True, but it is only sad to… shall I spell it out, again?

Catholics are not forbidden to divorce. We are forbidden to commit adultery by divorcing and re-marrying.

Really? Is there a divorce allowed in the framework of the “sacramental marriage”? I was under the impression that ONLY annulment is granted… divorce… never. The temporal marriage can end in divorce, but not in the eyes of the church. So maybe it is you, who needs a refresher course.

I suppose it matters to the soul that inhabits that human person that was destroyed by a chemical.

As soon as you can prove that there is a “soul”… and that is cares either way… but that is not going to happen any time soon.

From a lobotomy? You lose your higher functioning? Lobotomy = vegetative state? Really?

Could you please cite your source for this? Thanks.

I did not say that. From a lobotomy one loses the traits we call “personality”. Not the same as the persisitent vegetative state, when the higher functions of the brain disappear. You really need to learn to read and understand what other people say. The constant “misunderstanding” you exhibit is pretty sad - if stems from lask of understanding - and rather annoying, if comes from being intentionally dense and obtuse.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

Are you really unable to comprehend that I said exactly what I meant? If the higher functions of the brain are permanently and irreversibly gone… then there is no person left there. Only the vegetative shell remains. See poor Terry Schiavo. It is not a coincidence that it is called a “permanent vegetative state”.

So insane people, or severely retarded people whose higher functions of the brain no longer exist and are permanently gone should be regarded as human beings but not persons?

On What planet in the universe is this valid logic???

I used the DNA argument because it is the scientific argument. You are made up of the same DNA you had in your mother’s womb. Had she chosen to abort you, you would not be a human being today. And because you would not be a human being, you would also be deprived of your personhood (which is not defined by having a fully developed brain any more than it is defined by having a fully formed heart).

 

[PRmerger]

[Really? Is there a divorce allowed in the framework of the “sacramental marriage”?

Yes. Divorce is allowed. Although it is a grave offense, civil divorce is recognized by the Church as an option.

Re-marriage is not.

Originally posted

by the Catholic Church: Limited divorce, or separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) Is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

You would do well, Tyrion, to do a bit of research before you ever say anything more here on the CAFs regarding the Catholic faith. It makes your ignorance especially egregious, given your signature bragging about how much you know.

As it turns out…not so much.
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

As soon as you can prove that there is a “soul”… and that is cares either way… but that is not going to happen any time soon.

Why do I have to do that? What makes you think that just because you can’t demonstrate empirical evidence for something that it doesn’t exist?

What experiment tells you that, Tyrion? (Answer: none. You simply heard a man say, “If it can’t be proved, then it doesn’t exist”, and you accepted it on faith. But you never read any empirical, peer-reviewed, controlled studies that demonstrate your premise. It is a statement, amusingly, faith.)

I did not say that. From a lobotomy one loses the traits we call “personality”.

And just so we’re clear: you have stated that someone who had a lobotomy is no longer a person.

You said so right here:

Look at a lobotomized human… he is not a person any more.

I will graciously allow you to retract that statement and we can begin again and pretend you never said something so absurd.

Do you retract that statement? Did you mean someone who is in a* vegetative state *is no longer a person? If so, then we can talk from there. ('Cause that’s also absurd, but at least it’s creeping towards reason slowly.)

 

[PRmerger]

I did not say that. From a lobotomy one loses the traits we call “personality”. Not the same as the persisitent vegetative state, when the higher functions of the brain disappear. You really need to learn to read and understand what other people say. The constant “misunderstanding” you exhibit is pretty sad - if stems from lask of understanding - and rather annoying, if comes from being intentionally dense and obtuse

You know, I can’t help but find this highly amusing. If you’re going to attempt to insult someone with a comment about learning “to read and understand”, you would think, at least, you would have the good sense to not use any misspelled words or poor grammar.

Did you really mean this: “if stems from lask of understanding”?

And this: “if comes from being intentionally dense and obtuse”.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2010/02/double-facepalm.jpg

 

[InJesusItrust]

It only goes one way. A person is a human being, but the human being is not necessarily a person. Look at a lobotomized human… he is not a person any more. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “person is as person does”. If we would ever meet an alien, who would exhibit the characteristics of a sentient being, that being would have to accepted as a “person”, regardless the the DNA. You guys are funny to “deify” the DNA.

In short, functionalism. You illustrate the errors of contraceptive mentality perfectly.

Why not continue with this mindset and claim that the more abilities a person has, the more valuable he is–the more a “person” he is.

 

[Linux]

Why not continue with this mindset and claim that the more abilities a person has, the more valuable he is–the more a “person” he is.

That’s a good example of today’s implementation of Capitalism.

 

[Linux]

Tyrion

Are you really unable to comprehend that I said exactly what I meant? If the higher functions of the brain are permanently and irreversibly gone… then there is no person left there. Only the vegetative shell remains. See poor Terry Schiavo. It is not a coincidence that it is called a “permanent vegetative state”.

So insane people, or severely retarded people whose higher functions of the brain no longer exist and are permanently gone should be regarded as human beings but not persons?

On What planet in the universe is this valid logic???

I used the DNA argument because it is the scientific argument. You are made up of the same DNA you had in your mother’s womb. Had she chosen to abort you, you would not be a human being today. And because you would not be a human being, you would also be deprived of your personhood (which is not defined by having a fully developed brain any more than it is defined by having a fully formed heart).

Science does not determine that a fetus is a person.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

**Science does not determine that a fetus is a person. **

DNA determines who you are. You are the same DNA as in your mother’s womb.

There’s your science. You cannot refute it.

All other attempts to define personhood hang on that DNA.

In California the murder of a pregnant woman is counted as a double homicide.

They are going by science. Why is it you can’t?

 

[InJesusItrust]

That’s a good example of today’s implementation of Capitalism.

A big problem is that we are so busy producing we have no time to wonder about the purpose of life. Does it make sense to derive you intrinsic worth from your work?

 

[Linux]

Linux

**Science does not determine that a fetus is a person. **

DNA determines who you are. You are the same DNA as in your mother’s womb.

I am not just my DNA. I have a personal soul. Neither Science or the Government defines a foetus as a person. And they certainly do not define person-hood according to the Catholic definition.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

I am not just my DNA. I have a personal soul. Neither Science or the Government defines a foetus as a person.

It is because you have a personal soul that neither science nor the government nor your mother chose to snuff out your life in the womb.

In California the killer of a pregnant woman is charged with double homicide. How can you be charged with a double homicide if you have not killed two persons?

 

[Linux]

Linux

I am not just my DNA. I have a personal soul. Neither Science or the Government defines a foetus as a person.

It is because you have a personal soul that neither science nor the government nor your mother chose to snuff out your life in the womb.

In California the killer of a pregnant woman is charged with double homicide. How can you be charged with a double homicide if you have not killed two persons?

You tell me. How about you post the exact details of the case so you can watch me rip your argument to pieces.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

**You tell me. How about you post the exact details of the case so you can watch me rip your argument to pieces. **

You seem very angry. What’s behind that?

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1094-fox

Rip away!!!

 

[Linux]

Linux

**You tell me. How about you post the exact details of the case so you can watch me rip your argument to pieces. **

You seem very angry. What’s behind that?

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1094-fox

Rip away!!!

You didn’t really give me what I asked for. But here is what I think has determined the charge of a double homicide.

1. The right to privacy
2. The right for a women to choose whether or not to take a foetus to full term.
3. Nobody has a legal right to force a women to have an abortion against her will.

4.The court can assume that the women was taking the foetus to full term (intending to give birth to a person) and thus the foetus has a right to life relative to that assumption, since it has the protection of the mothers desire and will.

Conclusion: Double Homicide relative to the rights of the mother and how she identifies with the foetus.

The title of the article answered your question. "Whether: You’re Human Depends On How I Feel About You’

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Conclusion: Double Homicide relative to the rights of the mother and how she identifies with the foetus.

This is the schizophrenic aspect of the law that the author was addressing and you know it.

An unborn child cannot both be a person and a nonperson according to the law.

That’s crazy.

That’s like saying a person can be both a slave and a free man at the same time depending on how you want to view him.

 

[PRmerger]

Conclusion: Double Homicide relative to the rights of the mother and how she identifies with the foetus.

This is the schizophrenic aspect of the law that the author was addressing and you know it.

An unborn child cannot both be a person and a nonperson according to the law.

That’s crazy.

That’s like saying a person can be both a slave and a free man at the same time depending on how you want to view him.

Yup. It’s :whacky: