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

[LisaA]

Well, yeah, like I said I use medical sites. So, the NHS and what not.

Sure. But that can be avoided, and as I said there is contraception that isn’t really that dangerous at all.

Fair enough. I guess I can’t really argue with this. I suppose it’s fair to say that you shouldn’t pay for a service you aren’t going to use.

Fair enough. I’d go onto the marriage issue, but not here and now and in this thread. We’re already off-topic enough.

I’d disagree that those raised without faith tradition would have no moral code. I, for one, am such a person and I was taught what is right or wrong from day one, as was everyone who ever existed. I also have my own way of deciding what is right or wrong, one that I believe is more satisfying as it requires thought about the subject rather than blindly accepting what a supposed deity would say to be true. I’m an atheist, and I believe abortion is wrong. Besides, you live in the USA, right? The majority of people there are Christians, so you can’t really argue that “so many” are raised without faith tradition.

1. Did these medical sites provide different information?
2. You are right there is contraception that is not hormone based. But it neither as convenient, effective or easy as popping a pill. Again as a Catholic I am opposed to using contraception. From a biological viewpoint the hormone based products in wide use today are problematic.
3. Appreciate your fair approach to forcing others to pay for your play.
4. Fine we are off topic
5. Note is said people are not raised with a faith traditon OR moral code. Some get one, some get both. My parents were atheists and altough pro abortion they did have a strong moral code on other issues. In fact I became pro-life before I was Catholic. I based it on wanting a consistency of thought with respect to this issue. Even though I didn’t “blindly follow the deity” I could figure out that if you wouldn’t kill a baby or a handicapped person you shouldn’t kill an unborn baby because it is helpless. One of the things that most attracted me to the Catholic faith is the consistent life ethic. As to this being a Christian country, I think many self describe as Christian and believe in God but haven’t given life issues much thought. Some mainstream Christian churches are very pro abortion in fact. I had to LEARN to be pro-life. Our culture is quite blase on the subject.

Hope this answers your charges
Lisa

 

[Regular_Atheist]

1. Did these medical sites provide different information?

Well, I only really used the NHS, but they should be trustworthy since they’re the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.

1. Note is said people are not raised with a faith traditon OR moral code. Some get one, some get both. My parents were atheists and altough pro abortion they did have a strong moral code on other issues. In fact I became pro-life before I was Catholic. I based it on wanting a consistency of thought with respect to this issue. Even though I didn’t “blindly follow the deity” I could figure out that if you wouldn’t kill a baby or a handicapped person you shouldn’t kill an unborn baby because it is helpless. One of the things that most attracted me to the Catholic faith is the consistent life ethic. As to this being a Christian country, I think many self describe as Christian and believe in God but haven’t given life issues much thought. Some mainstream Christian churches are very pro abortion in fact. I had to LEARN to be pro-life. Our culture is quite blase on the subject.

So, you’re an atheist that went Catholic? Cool. That’s quite rare, I believe. At least, it’s more common for it to be the other way around, or so I’ve heard. And, you’re certainly right about most people calling themselves Christians without actually following the beliefs they claim to have. My parents claim to be Christians, but I guess a good term for them would probably be cafeteria Christians. Most people in the UK seem to claim to be Christians, and yet don’t really seem to actually be Christian, if you know what I mean.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

I said that actually (more or less).
But my point was, when we use science and technology to alter ourselves and/or our environment (which contraception basically does) we are acting the least like animals (who are ruled by their instincts and defined by their environment).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

If there are gay animals (i.e. homosexuality occurs in Nature) how can it truly be unnatural?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

How are things such as the internet natural?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has one. You have your opinion which I must assume means you are homosexual and thus wish to justify what is abnormal (biologically), disordered (theologically) and detrimental to your mental, physical and emotional health.

Our bodies are designed to function in a certain way. There is one use for the reproductive organs found in nature. Theologically we take God’s intent for the way we are to use the gift of our physical nature as well. We can act in ways against our physical nature and it has consequences. But for some the perceived rewards are more important than the long term effect. Thus we also consider excessive eating and drinking as abnormal behavior. I think the term ‘disordered’ has a certain perjorative tone and thus it is rejected by those who wish to claim abnormal behavior is normal. But it doesn’t change reality. A man’s body and a woman’s body are complimentary and designed to join together for procreation and bonding in the marital relationship. Two men and two women can use their bodies in a way nature didn’t intend. That doesn’t make it normal.
Lisa

So what?

Nature didn’t intend for us to fly (human have no natural ability to do so), but does that make flying immoral (for humans at least)?

Being a dwarf is abnormal (i.e. not normal) does that make the condition immoral?

A healthy young man having little to no sex drive is abnormal, does that make him immoral?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re joking right? Surpression of “healthy” drives like lust for power, money and influence are the cause of far more deaths than some teen having to surpress his desire to watch porn? ** Good grief…you were joking right**?

Lisa

No.
I am quite serious.
I was a member of an apocalypse cult in the 1980s known as The Church Universal and Triumphant. So I’m speaking from experience when I say just how dangerous and harmful such anti-humanistic ideologies can be.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
So you are against self-sacrifice then (which is against our natural survival instinct) and believe that men should impregnate as many women as possible (which would be in line with our sex drive)?

You forget we have a nature given to us by God which has that potential for self sacrifice. That is what makes us different than animals. It’s when we act on our limbic brain without using our human spirit that we get into trouble.

Lisa

So your argument is essentially theological rather than scientific or even philosophical.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Again you continue to express opinions only. And again I believe you are simply trying to justify your own actions. There are myriads of statistics about the mental, physical and emotional issues of homosexuals. This has been discussed to death on other threads and since this thread is on contraception and abortion maybe we should get back to the subject.

Normal isn’t ‘common practice’ from a biological sense. When I speak of normal behavior in that sense, the emphasis is what maintains life and health and procreation.

Contraception (chemical) is quite unhealthy and has problems that linger long after the medications cease. Young women who are on hormones have emotional problems as well. Even more of an emotional and physical detriment results from abortion, particularly multiple abortion which are sadly all too common.

Liberals seem to want to be free to violate their nature both in their reproductive choices and in supporting homosexuality. I haven’t as yet heard any support for this position so maybe you have some ideas?

Is this all just a vestige of the 60s mantra…if it feels good do it?
Lisa

Do you believe straight men should be true to their (sexual) nature and impregnate as many women as possible* or* do you think they should show unnatural restraint and only procreate with one woman?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I absolutely did not say it is “terribly evil” and wrong to oppose all that is natural. I said when we go against our nature there are consequences. Yes there are some unnatural activities that are evil but some of them are just sins or failings. It’s not natural to binge drink for example. I don’t think it’s evil but there are consequences to the drinker, his family and society. Get the difference?

I’m glad to hear you disapprove of abortion. THIS IS EVIL. I believe contraception and homosexuality are going against our nature and there are consequences to both. As I said earlier, much research regarding the physical, mental and emotional impact of both.

But for some the consequences are weighed as less than the excitement or pleasure gained. Again a sin perhaps but not to the same level of evil as murder of the unborn. I truly don’t understand the Left’s obsession with preventing or killing their offspring. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Lisa

How?
What (if anything) is the theory that things such as binge drinking are unnatural based on?
And are they more unnatural (and therefore immoral in your view) than things such as cars, the internet, and powered flight?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That so belittles the power to create a human being, comparing it to taking a Xanax. I used the reference from Catholic philosophy. **You cannot argue against our teaching with non-Catholic opinions. **
Again you are a master of opinions and missing facts or the Catholic perspective from which I spoke.

Lisa

Of course I can.
So can Catholics if they try.

 

[LisaA]

If there are gay animals (i.e. homosexuality occurs in Nature) how can it truly be unnatural?

It doesn’t exist in nature in the same way humans practice. What appears to be homosexal behavior is often simply displays of fertility. Cows in heat will mount each other and mimic a bull. Young dogs will mount anything…your leg, their male buddies. Sometimes in confined or unnatural situations you will see male on male homosexual rape…rather like the situation in certain prisons.

The theory that there is a sexual pair bond between two male or female animals is quite ridiculous. Ask if the animal is still “homosexual” when a potential opposite sex partner in heat comes by…

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

How?
What (if anything) is the theory that things such as binge drinking are unnatural based on?
And are they more unnatural (and therefore immoral in your view) than things such as cars, the internet, and powered flight?

The issue is not with respect to inanimate objects. If that is your standard everything is “natural.” The issue is how are we ordered and how is our body designed to function. It is not natural nor are our bodies designed to ingest huge amounts of alcohol. As I said, going against nature has consequences. Watch what happens. Bad result, probably not a good idea.

Again could we get back to the thread? Is abortion or contraception necessary to life? I say no but YMMV.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Do you believe straight men should be true to their (sexual) nature and impregnate as many women as possible* or* do you think they should show unnatural restraint and only procreate with one woman?

You base this specious argument on the theory that there is no difference between humans and other animals. I beg to differ. While males of all species are designed to impregnate as many females as possible, it is our human nature, our spiritual side that prevents us from acting on our instincts. It is in our nature to punch someone in the nose if he offends us. But our spiritual nature allows us to withstand the drives of instinct.

Please quit positing silly and irrelevant questions. If this thread is not of interest to you start your own or find something more appropriate to your powers of influence
Lisa

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It doesn’t exist in nature in the same way humans practice. What appears to be homosexal behavior is often simply displays of fertility. Cows in heat will mount each other and mimic a bull. Young dogs will mount anything…your leg, their male buddies. Sometimes in confined or unnatural situations you will see male on male homosexual rape…rather like the situation in certain prisons.

The theory that there is a sexual pair bond between two male or female animals is quite ridiculous. Ask if the animal is still “homosexual” when a potential opposite sex partner in heat comes by…

That’s not quite true. You’re right in saying that animals don’t really have a sexual preference like humans do, but there are homosexual practices amongst social animals. Bonobo apes, for example, will engage in penis fencing, amongst other things.

 

[pismopal]

Personally I’d rather foot the bill for another child in the “system” than have to know that yet another unborn child has been brutally murdered.

Amen…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It doesn’t exist in nature in the same way humans practice. What appears to be homosexal behavior is often simply displays of fertility. Cows in heat will mount each other and mimic a bull. Young dogs will mount anything…your leg, their male buddies. Sometimes in confined or unnatural situations you will see male on male homosexual rape…rather like the situation in certain prisons.

The theory that there is a sexual pair bond between two male or female animals is quite ridiculous. Ask if the animal is still “homosexual” when a potential opposite sex partner in heat comes by…

Lisa

So what?

You just said that animal sexuality and human sexuality are quite distinctive.
You are not being consistent.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The issue is not with respect to inanimate objects. **If that is your standard everything is “natural.” ** The issue is how are we ordered and how is our body designed to function. It is not natural nor are our bodies designed to ingest huge amounts of alcohol. As I said, going against nature has consequences. Watch what happens. Bad result, probably not a good idea.

Again could we get back to the thread? Is abortion or contraception necessary to life? I say no but YMMV.

Lisa

How are things such as Plastic natural?
Why should we take your argument seriously when it includes so many statements such as this?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You base this specious argument on the theory that there is no difference between humans and other animals. I beg to differ. While males of all species are designed to impregnate as many females as possible, it is our human nature, our spiritual side that prevents us from acting on our instincts. It is in our nature to punch someone in the nose if he offends us. But our spiritual nature allows us to withstand the drives of instinct.

Please quit positing silly and irrelevant questions. If this thread is not of interest to you start your own or find something more appropriate to your powers of influence
Lisa

In other words you have nothing but a theological argument to back up your theory.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You base this specious argument on the theory that there is no difference between humans and other animals. I beg to differ. While males of all species are designed to impregnate as many females as possible, it is our human nature, our spiritual side that prevents us from acting on our instincts. It is in our nature to punch someone in the nose if he offends us. But our spiritual nature allows us to withstand the drives of instinct.

Please quit positing silly and irrelevant questions. If this thread is not of interest to you start your own or find something more appropriate to your powers of influence
Lisa

It should be noted that the existence of people like me disapproves your argument.
I am capable of suppressing my anger or lust for the greater good (or simply my long term interest) despite the fact that I am not a spiritual person at all.