- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 139,198
- Reaction score
- 96,828
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:applaud:applaud:applaud
I have tried to have logical debates with you but you reject facts, and logic. Your hilariously absurd claim that skepticism disproves atheism is proof of that statement. You seem to believe that you can create bizarre arguments and other must play along to your fun-house mirror claims, but that isn't how logic or debates are required to flow. I first thought that you were a sophist but your arguments aren't that nuanced.
That's pretty much exactly how I would have responded, so one way or another I suppose you'll have to come up with a real response that's not an ad hominem argument.
This is what you would say then:That's pretty much exactly how I would have responded, so one way or another I suppose you'll have to come up with a real response that's not an ad hominem argument.
Well, I asked for "reasoning" and this is an anti-religion talking point. First of all, the Church does not "oppose the use of effective methods of birth control." The Church is perfectly all right with married couples using "effective methods of birth control." What the Church opposes is extra-marital sex.They [Catholic Church] oppose the use of effective methods of birth control which leads to unplanned pregnancies, which often end in abortion.
If you include derogatory dismissal and personal derogation under the rubric of Comment, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.You really aren't interested in comments and counter-arguments. Conversations were dispensed with many posts ago.
.............. First of all, the Church does not "oppose the use of effective methods of birth control." The Church is perfectly all right with married couples using "effective methods of birth control." What the Church opposes is extra-marital sex. .............
I don't think you're correct about condoms, but at any rate, nothing you post rehabilitates the supposed "reasoning" that makes for more abortions."Effective methods" means rhythm method or some renamed form of it. All other forms of female contraceptives are call artificial and are "intrinsically evil". Interestingly enough male control of contraception ie condoms, may be OK with the Church. Men can make the decisions on conception and pregnancy but women can't. WOW that's blatantly anti-women....
The Guardian seems to think there is some confusion and controversy about condom use.I don't think you're correct about condoms, but at any rate, nothing you post rehabilitates the supposed "reasoning" that makes for more abortions.
The Guardian seems to think there is some confusion and controversy about condom use.
Catholic church tries to clear confusion over condom use | World news | The Guardian
If morality is grounded in the binary life and death, as per the OP argument, then morality, which derives from that binary, is binary in its foundation. Is that argument for non-binary morality which I asked you for available yet? As long as science cannot explain the phenomenon of life on earth, life is miraculous by definition.
.
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.It quite suddenly struck me how obviously wrong the last sentence is. Life is actually anti-miraculous, and giving birth an anti-miracle - by definition. Life abounds. Procreation is commonplace. Miracles - by definition - are something quite rare, and defy the laws of nature and biology. We certainly do not have over 7,000,000,000 miracles walking around the planet. Wouldn't that render the word miracle totally meaningless?
While abortion in the wild is spontaneous and in humans it is consciously decided there are similarities we should consider if we are to have an intelligent respect for the decisive and extensive role abortion, legal or illegal, plays in culture, society, religion, morals, economics, women and children.
As you pointed out self preservation is a fact of nature and abortion is the strategy for species and self preservation in times of extreme and consequential stress. Insufficient food, water, livable habitat, good health and over population are the stressors that trigger spontaneous abortion of a fetus that would be born weak or dead. Abortion preserves the female’s health, produces healthy offspring in the future and strengthens the health of the herd.
It’s important to recognize that pregnancy and birth during a time of extreme stress is an extinction strategy. Weakened females either die giving birth or are too weak to raise offspring and they die. Even if a female lives the herd is weaker.
In humans financial insecurity, emotional instability, poor health, hostile environment predict a debilitating outcome for mothers and children. They are the stressors that can cause spontaneous abortion or make women decide to abort rather than expose a child, herself or her family to a toxic and destructive situation.
That abortion is spontaneous in the wild but humans must make a conscious decision to abort doesn’t change the fact that stress triggered the abortion in both situations in order to preserve the female’s health and produce a healthy child/offspring later. Stress in the extreme has a similar effect in the wild and in human society.
There is no doubt that abortion is tragic. Photographs exist of animals mourning a dead fetus. But abortion is irrefutably and immutably a natural, life preserving, species protecting reaction to compelling and life threatening stresses. It is not helpful to make abortion into a moral or religious issue. It isn’t.
It is a natural strategy, conscious or unconscious, to protect the health of child-bearing females in bad times so strong children become possible later. Banning or restricting abortion circumvents the natural instinct to preserve the individual and the species.
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.
Not really. Presenting a negative scenario furthers your argument not at all. Calling something unnatural usually means the something unnatural is something you do not like. Pointing out individual behaviour only tells me of culture.. Terms more usually used by evolutionists such as natural or even unnatural would be talking about genetic variation in the alleles which record and transmit gene changes. It is only when a mutation establishes itself in the gene pool has any evolution occurred in the species. Emphasise "the species" and not anyone individual within the species.
“It is incorrect to equate induced abortion in humans with spontaneous abortion in wild animals.” I agree.
The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
I considered the animal comparison to be a deflection concerning the value of human life in order to devalue a human fetus based on the anti-abortion argument.
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.
Introducing a lion and spider to a debate about the human subject being addressed was a deflection.
The subject has nothing to do with what I like or don’t like. Besides, in my post to weaver2 I eliminated that word and offered different wording.
A large collection of human individuals all over the world, over a span of time, that have been practicing the exact same behavior imho they are no longer individuals they are a collective.
Based on the fact... that “collective” via mutual agreement, consent and encouragement shared by both male and female adherents abortion is an acceptable cultural norm that has been labeled “Abortion Culture” in this thread.
And, all of them are a group that I can label legitimately as a collection of the human species acting collectively to accomplish their desired culture norm without question.imho
Roseann
Too many men: China and India battle with the consequences of gender imbalance | South China Morning Post
I think, that “individual argument” would fall on deaf ears to all of those the individual men of China and India due to the abortion practices of their Countries who may never be participants of the species gene pool because they are a now a “collective” of men that outnumber women by 70 million.
When I said stress was the trigger for abortion it included genetic problems. They stress either the physical well being of the female or the direct development of the fetus in animals or humans. The point was to show that abortion is a natural reaction to stress, not to devalue the fetus. Nobody devalues a fetus, even animals can show what looks like grief over a dead fetus. Abortion, spontaneous or induced, is not a happy occasion.
If abortion is spontaneous and natural in animals it seems that it makes sense not to simply dismiss it in humans without asking why humans choose to abort. After all we are animals so the question is why do women abort a fetus. These are the reasons
Not ready for a child or another child ………….. 25%
Cannot financially support a child ……………… 23%
Have other people depending on me.. .………….19%
Unstable relationship with father or other………….8%
Not mature enough………………….………….......……..7%
Job and education leave no time for a child……….4%
Health of mother…………………………….........…………4%
Health of fetus…………………………………..........………3%
Incest, rape, family and father want abortion……….2%
Other…………………………………………...............…………6%
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute
Every reason , with the exception of "other," represents a stress either to the family, to the female or to the potential child. The list has no frivolous reasons. If, after thinking and reasoning a woman says that the stress of adding a child or another child to situation already unsuited to raising a child will be bad for the family, the child and the woman herself it makes sense to listen to what she is saying. Why would one ignore someone that says, "I can't do this" when this means the future of a child. Every child needs a home where there is a physical, mental and emotional capacity to care, love, and nurture the well being of all the family. Very few children grow up well to become responsible members of society without a family that can provide those essentials to healthy lives.
Extreme stress in nature automatically causes spontaneous abortion in animals. With the capacity to think and reason humans have an obligation to consider the future of the family, the child and the woman, an obligation to think very carefully about the survival a child to a situation that lacks support for that child. There are a few children that survive horrendous situations and go on to become contributing adults, but they are so few that denying abortions to thinking reasoning women is not a wise policy.
The mechanism that assures the survival of the herd is exactly the same as the mechanism that assures the health of human society. The only difference is that humans have to think about it and animals don't.
No, the introduction of any animal shows that there is no truth in arguing that a theory such as survival instinct can be used for any individual member of a species. It was just that having to explain the meaning to you was a side track.
If you use terms that do not belong such as unnatural then we are talking about what you personally think is unnatural.
You have not shown that any effect has happened because women get abortions. The so called genetic drift is just as you have said, nothing more than a "imho" There is no such thing as an abortion culture. that many women all around the world have had an abortion does not mean they conspire to have more or get other women to have abortions.
Why are you showing me stupidity like this? Are you trying to make my argument for me?
This kind of dumb **** is what happens when you let politics and men decide what is good for women.
In america idiot christian men want the right to tell women when and how they can breed as well as the chinese and indian government.
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?Ahh! As I suspected, you just made the word "miracle" totally meaningless. By defining it as the opposite of itself, you've managed to make it its own oxymoron. I suggest you look up the definition. It might explain why your world is upside down, as well as why you don't even know it is. Perhaps it's part of an answer to a question you haven't yet learned to ask yourself.
Just a thought.
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?
...As long as science cannot explain the phenomenon of life on earth, life is miraculous by definition...
It quite suddenly struck me how obviously wrong the last sentence is. Life is actually anti-miraculous, and giving birth an anti-miracle - by definition. Life abounds. Procreation is commonplace. Miracles - by definition - are something quite rare, and defy the laws of nature and biology. We certainly do not have over 7,000,000,000 miracles walking around the planet. Wouldn't that render the word miracle totally meaningless?
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.
Ahh! As I suspected, you just made the word "miracle" totally meaningless. By defining it as the opposite of itself, you've managed to make it its own oxymoron. I suggest you look up the definition. It might explain why your world is upside down, as well as why you don't even know it is. Perhaps it's part of an answer to a question you haven't yet learned to ask yourself.
Just a thought.
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?
You do seem to slay you, yes. But take heart, your search for the miraculous seems to be over at last!A football.
lol (I slay me!)
Perhaps your post was meant for someone else's argument. I don't recall engaging any discourse on the definition of "unnatural".
If you wish, however, to use your own definitions for words, I submit it will make understanding one another more difficult. Creation - or for that matter, pro-creation - is anything but a miracle. Unto itself, it is an anti-miracle. Were it otherwise, I would not remain . . .
. . . in Search of the Miraculous.
the miraculous football
you do seem to slay you, yes. But take heart, you're search for the miraculous seems to be over at last!
For by your own lights a football is miraculous!
Welcome to the forum. Hope to hear a lot from you by and by.touchdown !!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?