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

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I see no reason to believe that you are correct.

You’re going to have to do more explaining than that.

I’m sure you think life is compatible with death, too, which is a huge paradox and doesn’t require you to accept or believe that in order for it to be, in fact, a paradox.

Why?
What would be the point?

You don’t seem willing to consider other points of view.

 

[minion]

Men are biologically ordered to impregnate as many women as possible.

Yet…

According to Catholic Natural Law a man acting in such a way is sinful and wrong.

As a Catholic, how can you pretend that there is not an inherent contradiction there?

AIDS

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Men are biologically ordered to impregnate as many women as possible.

Yet…

According to Catholic Natural Law a man acting in such a way is sinful and wrong.

As a Catholic, how can you pretend that there is not an inherent contradiction there?

AIDS

Really

That’s your answer?

 

[minion]

Really

That’s your answer?

Why, what’s yours? Becoming a porn and sex addict? And hurting people in casual flings?

 

[markeverett49]

Men are biologically ordered to impregnate as many women as possible.

Yet…

According to Catholic Natural Law a man acting in such a way is sinful and wrong.

As a Catholic, how can you pretend that there is not an inherent contradiction there?

First, men are not biologically ordered to impregnate as many women as possible. Darwin said all organisms leave behind as many offspring, but he was clearly wrong about humans. (If he were right, there would be no abortion, no contraception, no infanticide, but all these things exist, and some humans never mate at all. Even those who do have offspring tend to have fewer than they COULD have. Darwin was just wrong about this.

Natural law is not Catholic. Catholics may appeal to it, but it is not Catholic. Philosophers were talking about natural law long before the advent of the Catholic Church.

 

[markeverett49]

The internet isnt natural, but the internet is not disordered. It doesnt prevent organisms in doing what they were ordered for.

The term “natural” in “natural law” does NOT mean ‘whatever happens in nature.’ Rape and murder happen in nature but are not deemed “natural” by anyone here. “Natural” means ‘according to the nature of.’ Tomatoes need good soil, sufficient water and sunlight, and protection from pests if they are to ripen. To say that homosexuality is “unnatural” is to say that homosexual acts go against the nature of human sexuality, which is geared to procreation. (Ask any biologist.) Defenders of same-sex marriage ASSUME the premise that human beings have no nature and that therefore, their sexuality has no intrinsic goal or purpose and that people may choose to invest whichever acts they prefer with whatever meaning they like.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Really

That’s your answer?

Why, what’s yours? Becoming a porn and sex addict? And hurting people in casual flings?

What does that have to do with whether or not an activity is* natural*?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First, men are not biologically ordered to impregnate as many women as possible. Darwin said all organisms leave behind as many offspring, but he was clearly wrong about humans. (If he were right, there would be no abortion, no contraception, no infanticide, but all these things exist, and some humans never mate at all. Even those who do have offspring tend to have fewer than they COULD have. Darwin was just wrong about this.

Natural law is not Catholic. Catholics may appeal to it, but it is not Catholic. Philosophers were talking about natural law long before the advent of the Catholic Church.

According to your logic the survival instinct is dis-proved because people sometimes (not often) sacrifice their lives for the greater good (from their perspective) or commit suicide.

 

[minion]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Really

That’s your answer?

What does that have to do with whether or not an activity is* natural*?

Here you go:

youtube.com/watch?v=x7OdSU9zmkc

Explains it better than I ever can

 

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Really

That’s your answer?

What does that have to do with whether or not an activity is* natural*?

I think the suggestion that self destructive behavior is going against our nature. Presumably all species are ordered for survival and procreation. Engaging in self destructive behavior would be unnatural…not that such behavior doesn’t occur in nature. Obviously it does. But this is with respect to a species acting in accordance with survival and procreation.

Markeverett, appreciate your clear and compelling posts on this subject. Thank you
Lisa

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The fact that there is even an argument about killing babies just shows there is a devil and that the world apart from the Catholic Church is on the pathway to Hell!

If you have to explain WHY it is wrong to kill babies–the people who have to have it explained to them ARE the problem!

 

[livingwordunity]

The fact that there is even an argument about killing babies just shows there is a devil and that the world apart from the Catholic Church is on the pathway to Hell!

If you have to explain WHY it is wrong to kill babies–the people who have to have it explained to them ARE the problem!

This.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=BlueEyedLady;9677953]What’s the point of breathing at eating if you don’t have freedom and autonomy when it comes to your own body?

A conceived child has a different DNA pattern.

That is not “your own body”.

And you’re worried about liberals and the pill? Have you noticed how nuts conservatives get when restrictions on smoking are put in place? And smoking causes all sorts of health problems, even in people who don’t smoke but are around it.

Smokers maybe the most persecuted people of this time. When did it become the government’s responsibility to make sure people were healthy?

And the pill-cancer link is highly debated in the medical community.

Anything that circumvents progressive ideals often is; if nothing else, to cause division and derision while they silently implement their civilization-destroying plan.

 

[SuperLuigi]

True enough.
Modern people tend to forget that one of the main reasons our ancestors had so many kids was because of the (unfortunately reasonable) expectation that many (or even most) of their kids wouldn’t survive to adulthood.

People have children because the survival of civilization and culture depends on it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Conservatives have steadily been losing ground in Western society since the American Revolution (if not long before).

They seemed to do pretty well in elections in 1900, the 1920s, 1950s and 1980s.

And look at 2010.

The West, huh?

Have you seen the TFR reports in this country? Mind telling me why Mormons, Muslims and Latino/conservative Catholics are having children and why the liberal northeast can’t keep up with population growth?

Also, check at the number of electoral votes that blue states have lost versus say Texas and Florida and Arizona.

Oh, and don’t forget the Muslim growth in West-Central Europe. I suppose they are liberal and progressive though, huh?

Conservatives lost when slavery was abolished.

I’d say the democrats did, since they fought a war to keep it.

Conservatives lost when women got the vote.

How so? We’ve got Sarah and Condi today.

Conservatives lost when lynching became unacceptable.

Wasn’t most of that was done by the KKK?—which was vastly made up of democrats. And aren’t there a lot of democrats who still support the death penalty, which can be more painful if done incorrectly than hanging?

Conservatives lost when laws against interracial marriage were overturned.

The only people I know of who secretly won’t date interracially are either democrats or apathetic in the world of politics.

Over and over again in American (and for that matter European society) conservatives have tried to defend the status quo and (eventually) been defeated.

Actually, today’s liberals would be yesterday’s Tories and maybe even some slave owners and indentured servant masters-----but instead of Africans and women, it’d probably be straight white able-bodied men of Anglo-Saxon descent.

I really couldn’t see the academic elite siding with the Founding Fathers in fighting the British, especially if they had a place in the royal court.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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)?

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

Conservatives believe in a moral order to things and not in the black and white choices that progressives lay before us.

 

[LisaA]

Conservatives believe in a moral order to things and not in the black and white choices that progressives lay before us.

Also you will find the progressives’ decisions and policies are initiated by feelings, not facts.

Lisa

 

[SuperLuigi]

Also you will find the progressives’ decisions and policies are initiated by feelings, not facts.

Lisa

I agree.

The problem with that being a conservative politically is different than fighting every single change in society. Political Constitutional conservatives were at the heart of many changes.

Taking someone else’s labour by force of government (slavery) or only allowing a certain group to have voting privileges flies in the face of the Constitution.

It was the republicans who wanted to end slavery, got the women’s sufferage movement going and wanted to pass civil rights legislation under IKE in the 1950s.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

There is an old saying in politics that if you are not a liberal when you are young, it shows that you have no heart. But when you are older, if you are not a conservative, it shows that you have no brains!

 

[LisaA]

There is an old saying in politics that if you are not a liberal when you are young, it shows that you have no heart. But when you are older, if you are not a conservative, it shows that you have no brains!

I resemble that remark . So do many prominent conservatives. Many of us put away those childish things. Some never do.

Lisa