Why do liberals act like they can't live without contraception and abortions?

[LisaA]

Youre confusing the arguments now. Our sub-discussion was just on Nature and what is Natural, and how things in nature can be unnatural in the sense that they go against what organisms are ordered for.

Becoming a priest and remaining celibate for life is indeed Unnatural. In a way, it is Supernatural because God is the one who called that person to that way of living.

Same for homosexuals.

The morality is yet another argument.

Some (not you) are confusing Nature with Natural Law. You have the right approach in focusing on what any organism is ordered to do by its very nature. Going against this nature has consequences. Some as you said in the realm of morality and some in the realm of biology.

Back to the thread, artificial contraception and abortion are CLEARLY unnatural behaviors. They both go against our human nature and they go against biology. Oh and certainly there are moral questions as well!

I would love to hear a really cogent argument supporting these behaviors. We look askance at the behavior of lemmings, throwing themselves off of a cliff to certain death but many in this society have no problem with abortion or artificial contraception. The latter perhaps has some biological support but the former is completely without reason.

Lisa

 

[RobbyS]

Who are you to tell someone their purpose in life or what they were meant to be? And if you say it is God who is saying it, then would you accept a muslim badgering you about making a trip to mecca and how you need to be Muslim because that is your purpose in life?

Well, our purpose is to go to heaven, and so probably we should listen to guys like Paul. Right?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Some (not you) are confusing Nature with Natural Law. You have the right approach in focusing on what any organism is ordered to do by its very nature. Going against this nature has consequences. Some as you said in the realm of morality and some in the realm of biology.

Back to the thread, artificial contraception and abortion are CLEARLY unnatural behaviors. They both go against our human nature and they go against biology. Oh and certainly there are moral questions as well!

I would love to hear a really cogent argument supporting these behaviors. We look askance at the behavior of lemmings, throwing themselves off of a cliff to certain death but many in this society have no problem with abortion or artificial contraception. The latter perhaps has some biological support but the former is completely without reason.

Lisa

Well yes.
Most animals have sex just to breed.
Only humans with our mechanical genius, are able to design artificial contraception.

It SEPARATES us from the animals.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Youre confusing the arguments now. Our sub-discussion was just on Nature and what is Natural, and how things in nature can be unnatural in the sense that they go against what organisms are ordered for.

Becoming a priest and remaining celibate for life is indeed Unnatural. In a way, it is Supernatural because God is the one who called that person to that way of living.

Same for homosexuals.

The morality is yet another argument.

So is artificial contraception (and the internet for that matter).

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Actually its not just “my view” and not worthless in this discussion because everything in life is ordered for survival, wouldnt you agree? Cancer is not ordered for survival and neither is homosexual sex.

Way to contradict yourself.

And, no, I wouldn’t say everything is “ordered for survival”. Sure, it is in the interest of the species as a whole to reproduce, but not necessarily in the interest of every individual. A few people not reproducing will hardly affect things.

It’s funny that Christians always go on about how atheists see themselves as animals, and yet it’s always Christians that bring up points about how we were created to reproduce and to survive, which is basically looking at yourself as an animal.

EDIT: There’s another point I’d like to add. If your God created cancer, and cancer only exists to kill, then your God evidently doesn’t want everyone to survive, so life isn’t ordered for survival.

 

[LisaA]

Well yes.
Most animals have sex just to breed.
Only humans with our mechanical genius, are able to design artificial contraception.

It SEPARATES us from the animals.

No, what separates us from animals is our ability to withstand the purely instinctive behavior exhibited by non-human animals. They have to defecate, they defecate wherever they are. They want another’s food, they take it. They want another’s mate, they take it.

Instead we have the ability to distinguish among behaviors and activities, to think of the other in a situation, to have a moral code that overcomes our desires (well we TRY anyway). With respect to sex, hopefully you’ve heard that the Church does not limit sex to attempts to procreate within a marriage.

To claim the ability to use chemicals to avoid procreation as the height of the human experience is rather cynical I think.

Lisa

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, what separates us from animals is our ability to withstand the purely instinctive behavior exhibited by non-human animals. They have to defecate, they defecate wherever they are. They want another’s food, they take it. They want another’s mate, they take it.

Instead we have the ability to distinguish among behaviors and activities, to think of the other in a situation, to have a moral code that overcomes our desires (well we TRY anyway). With respect to sex, hopefully you’ve heard that the Church does not limit sex to attempts to procreate within a marriage.

To claim the ability to use chemicals to avoid procreation as the height of the human experience is rather cynical I think.
Lisa

That doesn’t mean its wrong.
And I* do think *that our ability to develop science and technology is the most important thing that separates us from the animals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

No, what separates us from animals is our ability to withstand the purely instinctive behavior exhibited by non-human animals. They have to defecate, they defecate wherever they are. They want another’s food, they take it. They want another’s mate, they take it.

You don’t give animals enough credit. They don’t just defecate anywhere. Cats will always return to a litter tray, for example. Many animals are more hygienic than you think. It’s also not true that they just take each other’s food. Social animals may need to look after each other, which would include feeding one another. In fact, it could be argued that certain animals are more moral than humans.

 

[LisaA]

You don’t give animals enough credit. They don’t just defecate anywhere. Cats will always return to a litter tray, for example. Many animals are more hygienic than you think. It’s also not true that they just take each other’s food. Social animals may need to look after each other, which would include feeding one another. In fact, it could be argued that certain animals are more moral than humans.

Animals can learn and be trained for example to use a litter box. Animals share food with their offspring and with respect to certain species pairs help feed each other. I do not think this is a moral decision but an expression of an instinct. Mammals of course nurse their new babies so they do not have to gather food as do birds.

I grew up on a farm and daily observed the behavior of many domesticated species as well as the wild species that lived in our pastures and woods. I assure you they pooped wherever they were as do cats and dogs not enclosed or trained to a litter pan. They also fought over food…sheep can be quite aggressive when it comes to the molasses tub I assure you. And if you’ve ever owned multiple dogs or cats, you surely have not observed self sacrifice when it came to the food dish…oh no Frisky, YOU first, please have that best piece of Fancy Feast!

We bred animals as well and frankly do not remember a male animal or female in heat ever abstaining. In fact we were often amazed at the lengths both male and female animals went to in order to satisfy their instinctive drives.

I love animals and treat them very kindly. I do not expect morality or self sacrificial behavior from them though.

As to humans, it is those who DO revert to the pressures of their limbic brain who create many if not most of the problems in this world. They exhibit behavior of animals.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

That doesn’t mean its wrong.
And I* do think *that our ability to develop science and technology is the most important thing that separates us from the animals.

As a Catholic, I believe it is wrong, as a daughter of two biology professors, I believe it is unnatural…in that we are fighting our nature, we are fighting what nature intended, and the way we are ordered.

As to your second statement, you are not actually an atheist, you are simply substituting the gods of science, technology and the human mind from God we worship. My parents had the exact viewpoint so it’s easily recognizable.

Lisa

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Animals can learn and be trained for example to use a litter box. Animals share food with their offspring and with respect to certain species pairs help feed each other. I do not think this is a moral decision but an expression of an instinct. Mammals of course nurse their new babies so they do not have to gather food as do birds.

I grew up on a farm and daily observed the behavior of many domesticated species as well as the wild species that lived in our pastures and woods. I assure you they pooped wherever they were as do cats and dogs not enclosed or trained to a litter pan. They also fought over food…sheep can be quite aggressive when it comes to the molasses tub I assure you. And if you’ve ever owned multiple dogs or cats, you surely have not observed self sacrifice when it came to the food dish…oh no Frisky, YOU first, please have that best piece of Fancy Feast!

I was actually thinking more of animals in the wild who exhibit these behaviours without being taught. There are plenty of animals who, most likely be instinct, return to the same place to defecate, or who will care for each other. I don’t think sheep are a good example - they’re not known for, well, anything really. Really, though, what sets us apart from the animals is that we can consciously make the choice to take advantage of other people, being full aware of their feelings and emotions. Of course, most of us don’t though.

It’s rather irrelevant to the discussion, anyway. I don’t see how it has any relevance to whether or not contraception is moral or immoral.

 

[interestedman]

Well, our purpose is to go to heaven, and so probably we should listen to guys like Paul. Right?

If you want to hedge your bets on Paul, that is fine. Billions of people are hedging their bets on Muhammad or Krishna or someone else though.

 

[LisaA]

I was actually thinking more of animals in the wild who exhibit these behaviours without being taught. There are plenty of animals who, most likely be instinct, return to the same place to defecate, or who will care for each other. I don’t think sheep are a good example - they’re not known for, well, anything really. Really, though, what sets us apart from the animals is that we can consciously make the choice to take advantage of other people, being full aware of their feelings and emotions. Of course, most of us don’t though.

It’s rather irrelevant to the discussion, anyway. I don’t see how it has any relevance to whether or not contraception is moral or immoral.

Being an atheist you dismiss our Catholic centered morals. Further you or your fellow atheist poster claimed animals exhibited “moral” behavior where I maintain they exhibit instinctive behavior. Man is distinguished by his ability to withstand those very pressures, to make self sacrifice even in cases where there is no relationship. You (or your fellow athiest sorry can’t remember which is which) claim that contraception is the height of our humanity and I say no, it’s neither natural nor moral.

Thus I pointed out that the very same morals have their origination in natural law and the way we were ordered. I maintain that going against our nature results in negative consequences. This can be seen both in biology and in morality, particularly with respect to abortion.

Lisa

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Being an atheist you dismiss our Catholic centered morals. Further you or your fellow atheist poster claimed animals exhibited “moral” behavior where I maintain they exhibit instinctive behavior. Man is distinguished by his ability to withstand those very pressures, to make self sacrifice even in cases where there is no relationship. You (or your fellow athiest sorry can’t remember which is which) claim that contraception is the height of our humanity and I say no, it’s neither natural nor moral.

Thus I pointed out that the very same morals have their origination in natural law and the way we were ordered. I maintain that going against our nature results in negative consequences. This can be seen both in biology and in morality, particularly with respect to abortion.

Lisa

Actually, you’re claiming that following our nature is immoral and should be avoided, as humans are quite sexual animals and Christians are often taught to ignore our natural sexual urges at least until marriage, for example. I have also yet to see a definition of natural law that is not entirely subjective, and the term natural law itself is a misnomer as what Christians claim is against natural law is not actually unnatural in anyway (such as homosexuality). I’d also like to know why things being unnatural makes them immoral.

For the record, it wasn’t me that claimed that contraception was the height of our achievement.

 

[interestedman]

I have also yet to see a definition of natural law that is not entirely subjective, and the term natural law itself is a misnomer as what Christians claim is against natural law is not actually unnatural in anyway (such as homosexuality). I’d also like to know why things being unnatural makes them immoral.

Great questions and points. I am looking forward to responses to this.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Way to contradict yourself.

And, no, I wouldn’t say everything is “ordered for survival”. Sure, it is in the interest of the species as a whole to reproduce, but not necessarily in the interest of every individual. A few people not reproducing will hardly affect things.

It’s funny that Christians always go on about how atheists see themselves as animals, and yet it’s always Christians that bring up points about how we were created to reproduce and to survive, which is basically looking at yourself as an animal.

EDIT: There’s another point I’d like to add. If your God created cancer, and cancer only exists to kill, then your God evidently doesn’t want everyone to survive, so life isn’t ordered for survival.

It is not contradictory at all. I think youre losing sight of my point, so let me reiterate…

Things in nature can be unnatural in the sense that they go against what organisms are ordered for.

For example, Cancer. Cancer is natural yet “unnatural” because we were not meant to live our lives with it, it goes against our nature to live. So then, that is why people try to rid themselces of it should they get it.

For people who claim homosexuality is “natural”, being that it goes against what organisms are ordrred for (life and survival) it is therefore unnatural, like Cancer. The only thing is, people embrace homosexuality. So theres the contradiction.

Also, by using the nature and animals thing, I am playing into YOUR arguement assuming homosexuality is genuinely found in nature. Yet, your points on this still dont make sense.

Furhtermore you go on to claim that homosexuality wouldnt really affect the survival of a species. Surely if the first humans were homosexual, we would surely all have been extinct thousands of years ago.

 

[LisaA]

Actually, you’re claiming that following our nature is immoral and should be avoided, as humans are quite sexual animals and Christians are often taught to ignore our natural sexual urges at least until marriage, for example. I have also yet to see a definition of natural law that is not entirely subjective, and the term natural law itself is a misnomer as what Christians claim is against natural law is not actually unnatural in anyway (such as homosexuality). I’d also like to know why things being unnatural makes them immoral.

For the record, it wasn’t me that claimed that contraception was the height of our achievement.

Homosexuality is completely abnormal behavior from a biological basis. It is disordered behavior. It is seen by certain faiths and cultures as immoral. You demonstrate your own biases by saying homosexuality is “completely normal” which utterly ridiculous.

Yes SOMETIMES following our nature IS immoral. Please read Genesis for further instruction. THAT is the point, that animals have no moral standard. We have a standard but we are all sinners and fail to practice our ideals.

And your point (other than trying to slip a pro homosexual mesage through) is?

Lisa

 

[CrimsonThorn]

So is artificial contraception (and the internet for that matter).

I think its pretty much given that ARTIFICIAL contraception is considered unnatural. It goes against what organisms were ordered for, passing down DNA and ensuring the survival of their bloodline and species.

The internet does not inhibit life or survival. Living organisms can still use the internet and live and pass their DNA and do what they were naturally ordered for.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It is not contradictory at all. I think youre losing sight of my point, so let me reiterate…

Things in nature can be unnatural in the sense that they go against what organisms are ordered for.

For example, Cancer. Cancer is natural yet “unnatural” because we were not meant to live our lives with it, it goes against our nature to live. So then, that is why people try to rid themselces of it should they get it.

For people who claim homosexuality is “natural”, being that it goes against what organisms are ordrred for (life and survival) it is therefore unnatural, like Cancer. The only thing is, people embrace homosexuality. So theres the contradiction.

The reason people get rid of cancer is because it kills them, not because it goes against what they’re ordered for. People “embrace” homosexuality because it does not have the same deadly effects as cancer. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Also, by using the nature and animals thing, I am playing into YOUR arguement assuming homosexuality is genuinely found in nature. Yet, your points on this still dont make sense.

I’d argue otherwise. Your points don’t make sense at all. Since when do people get rid of cancer because it goes against what we’re “ordered” for, rather than the fact that it kills them?

Furhtermore you go on to claim that homosexuality wouldnt really affect the survival of a species. Surely if the first humans were homosexual, we would surely all have been extinct thousands of years ago.

Surely if the first humans were women, we would have been extinct thousands of years ago? Surely if the first humans were men, we would have been extinct thousands of years ago? Surely if the first humans were sterile, we would have been extinct thousands of years ago?

The fact is, only a certain population of humans are ever women. Only a certain population of humans are ever men. Only a certain population of humans are ever sterile. Same applies to homosexuals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Homosexuality is completely abnormal behavior from a biological basis. It is disordered behavior. It is seen by certain faiths and cultures as immoral. You demonstrate your own biases by saying homosexuality is “completely normal” which utterly ridiculous.

Yes SOMETIMES following our nature IS immoral. Please read Genesis for further instruction. THAT is the point, that animals have no moral standard. We have a standard but we are all sinners and fail to practice our ideals.

And your point (other than trying to slip a pro homosexual mesage through) is?

I don’t believe humans or any animals need to live by some strict code to keep their lives “ordered”. I don’t believe homosexuality is wrong because it is “disordered”. I don’t see how something being “disordered” makes it immoral. If it were, being sterile would be immoral. I also fail to see how other sexual sin in Catholicism are “disordered” such as masturbation, as it doesn’t really have too much of an affect on reproduction.

My point is that natural law is a misnomer, and is not actually a view of what is natural to decide what is right or wrong, but more a subjective opinion on how people should live their lives.