|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
 Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 6:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Noliving wrote: |
| augustine wrote: |
| I personally can't stand "pro-life" people. Anti-abortionists better be the ones raising those unwanted babies. You said I have to have it... so you f*cking raise it. |
I only agree with that kind of sentiment if the people involved were forced to have sex or if one of them was force to have sex. If you voluntarily have sex and know that abortion is illegal than that is on you, not the people who made it illegal, to be the ones raising child. If you didn't want to raise a child than don't engage in casual sex.
I don't want to pay car insurance so does that mean that those that passed the law making it a requirement to have insurance to drive a car should be the ones paying for it? |
An abortion to car insurance analogy! Hm... I don't know about that one lol.
Basically you're saying that people should be a bitch to whatever said government classifies as legal or illegal. This is not insurance. This is a little creature that is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to raise no matter who is raising it. You want to force people who can't afford to raise it, to raise it? That doesn't make any sense, a lot of those people will just be handing it over to someone else anyway, and maybe that's the government, so you'll be paying for it anyway. What are you talking about?
Look at the world you live in, people are screwing everyone everywhere, and they always have and always will. You trying to shame people for having casual sex by burdening them with something that will most likely split them up and possibly ruin their lives as well as the child's, is pretty idiotic, and very poor policy. Need to rethink this one, pal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| . Obviously I will hold that contraception is unnacceptable in any case; we'll just have to disagree on that. |
So people who are naturally sterile or to whom having a baby would place the mother at grave risk should just reconcile themselves to a non-physical intimacy? |
Those who are naturally sterile may engage in marital relations as normal, because although in their case the primary end of the act will not be fulfilled, they are not deliberately preventing it.
I mentioned just a bit upthread that the reverse rhythm method can be used for grave reasons, such as the wife's health. But let's suppose a woman were in a situation where, somehow, only contraception would allow her to be intimate with her husband. It is still prohibited. The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
| GF wrote: |
| Circumspect use of torture can be legitimate, as should be clear from the fact that the Church made official use of it. |
Torture is ok, condoms are evil. This is GF's interpretation of moral law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
To be perfectly frank, I see absolutely nothing unethical in the notion of a couple who has already had as many children as they can reasonably manage given their circumstances utilizing artificial conception while engaging in intercourse: they are not simply losing themselves to lust, but rather, acting to keep their marital bond strong and healthy, in part for the sake of the children they've already had. That's a positive thing, certainly no worse than Natural Family Planning in any meaningful sense, given both are ultimately a means to the same end. |
So, In other words, you think there is something unethical in the notion of a couple 'losing themselves to lust' and using contraception to prevent conception? On what basis do you find 'lust' or sex for pleasure unethical? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
Birth control is wrong, in se, because it frustrates the natural purpose of relations. Compounding with this, we can see that through its easy accessibility it enables and proliferates other manners of vice, including feminism and fornication, and other evils which flow from these.
|
In a world that is already overpopulated you want to ban all birth control? You want women in relationships to be constantly pregnant during their childbearing years? This is complete insanity. |
The world is not overpopulated. There is much land and food to spare. |
You're ignoring the huge strain pollution puts upon the environment, not to mention that growing food relies on water and there are already problems of water scarcity arising. The kind of standard-of-living enjoyed in the west is already nonviable for all of the world's population as it currently is. |
It's worth pointing out that what you're describing is more of a standard of living problem than a strict population problem. |
Exactly what I was intending to say. Furthermore, there is a clear and compelling case to be made for the evilness of birth control and abortion, and no counterbalancing case whatsover for the goodness of hedonistic consumerism.
Pointing out problems that arise from people not leading Catholic lives, and thinking that's a refutation of Catholic morality, is evidence of broken reasoning faculties. |
Ok fair point, the woman wasn't in a stable marriage. However the problem for me with this argument is the fact that your desire to ban all birth control would only lead to more of these kinds of situations occurring.
If overnight all people could become devout, perfect Catholics who never have sex for pleasure or outside of marriage, your desire to ban birth control might be more reasonable, but you and me both know that's unrealistic. Pretending that banning birth control wouldn't create more single parents with more children than they can afford to raise with dignity is shortsighted and irresponsible.
And in any case the Earth cannot support unlimited human population growth. Yes western lifestyles are wasteful and I'm all for people consuming less but that doesn't mean there isn't a limit to the resources on Earth. I'm looking at the long-term consequence of every couple on Earth having as many children as they can possibly conceive during the female's childbearing years, not talking about everyone having an affluent lifestyle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| As to the life support analogy, I've already addressed this. An accident victim is hooked up to a machine. We do not care about the burden we place on a machine. |
You appear to be confusing the PERSONHOOD of the fetus with whatever other costs and burdens may be associated with that recognition. If, as you claim, viability, i.e. the ability to survive and develop without outside support, is a necessary condition for personhood, then other "human organisms" that meet such criteria must also be denied their human rights. Those on life support meet this precisely.
If, on the other hand, you want to associate that life support with the mother, then what would you say when, not if, technology approaches the level where we are able to extract a fetus and place it in some machine that can shoulder the mother's burden? Does that fetus suddenly become a person simply because it is no longer supported by the mother? Would you really hold the personhood and thus rights of an individual subject to our level of technology?
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I said nothing of the definition of life nor disqualifying characteristics for such. |
We were discussing the personhood of the fetus. The analogy was intended to illustrate that viability is a poor qualifier for personhood. If you didn't want to discuss that, you shouldn't have replied to my post or the analogy.
=====
As to the other topic that's popped up...
Contraception directly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies (among other things we would want reduced), and as such directly reduces the number of fetal murders. The only "consequence" of this is that people will be able to have sex for purposes other than procreation. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a decent secular argument can be built around this. If contraception were somehow only available to fornicators, sure, but sex strengthens the bonds of marital relationships, thus directly reducing the amount of fornication.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would have condemned the use of condoms (in marriages) had they been available in His time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
To be perfectly frank, I see absolutely nothing unethical in the notion of a couple who has already had as many children as they can reasonably manage given their circumstances utilizing artificial conception while engaging in intercourse: they are not simply losing themselves to lust, but rather, acting to keep their marital bond strong and healthy, in part for the sake of the children they've already had. That's a positive thing, certainly no worse than Natural Family Planning in any meaningful sense, given both are ultimately a means to the same end. |
So, In other words, you think there is something unethical in the notion of a couple 'losing themselves to lust' and using contraception to prevent conception? On what basis do you find 'lust' or sex for pleasure unethical? |
Once you're in a genuinely committed relationship, sexual intercourse in-and-of itself will generally be a tool for strengthening it. Who are these people who are wed, partaking in mutually loving, consensual sexual intercourse, and yet possessed of absolutely no mind to maintain and strengthen their relationship bonds while doing so?
Now if the intercourse is either unloving (for example, a man aroused after watching pornography demeans his wife by using her as a crude vehicle upon which to enact the fantasies he just observed) or non-consensual (for example, rape), obviously things are different, but do I really need to explain why such cases suffer from ethical problems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
| GF wrote: |
| Circumspect use of torture can be legitimate, as should be clear from the fact that the Church made official use of it. |
Torture is ok, condoms are evil. This is GF's interpretation of moral law. |
GF should really know better. Torture is against natural law.
| Paul Foriers wrote: |
| Torture violates the natural right of the individual not to accuse himself and to be able to defend himself. This is a natural right which no treaty, no social contract can remove from the individual and which thus remains for the individual a natural prerogative, in the sense put upon it by Thomas Hobbes: 'whatever the criminal answers [under the effect of torture], whether true, false, or whether he remains silent, he has the right to do this in a manner that which seems to him to be just.' Against natural law, torture was condemned by Natural Law theorists in the name of its useless and inefficacity. |
Torture is a direct assault on human dignity, and so ineffective that no circumspection or ticking time bomb can redeem it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
As to the other topic that's popped up...
Contraception directly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies (among other things we would want reduced), and as such directly reduces the number of fetal murders. The only "consequence" of this is that people will be able to have sex for purposes other than procreation. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a decent secular argument can be built around this. If contraception were somehow only available to fornicators, sure, but sex strengthens the bonds of marital relationships, thus directly reducing the amount of fornication.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would have condemned the use of condoms (in marriages) had they been available in His time. |
I'm glad that you're reasonable enough to differ with GF on this issue at least. Although I don't really see the problem of condoms outside marriage either.
Last edited by asylum seeker on Sat May 04, 2013 3:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
To be perfectly frank, I see absolutely nothing unethical in the notion of a couple who has already had as many children as they can reasonably manage given their circumstances utilizing artificial conception while engaging in intercourse: they are not simply losing themselves to lust, but rather, acting to keep their marital bond strong and healthy, in part for the sake of the children they've already had. That's a positive thing, certainly no worse than Natural Family Planning in any meaningful sense, given both are ultimately a means to the same end. |
So, In other words, you think there is something unethical in the notion of a couple 'losing themselves to lust' and using contraception to prevent conception? On what basis do you find 'lust' or sex for pleasure unethical? |
Once you're in a genuinely committed relationship, sexual intercourse in-and-of itself will generally be a tool for strengthening it. Who are these people who are wed, partaking in mutually loving, consensual sexual intercourse, and yet possessed of absolutely no mind to maintain and strengthen their relationship bonds while doing so?
Now if the intercourse is either unloving (for example, a man aroused after watching pornography demeans his wife by using her as a crude vehicle upon which to enact the fantasies he just observed) or non-consensual (for example, rape), obviously things are different, but do I really need to explain why such cases suffer from ethical problems? |
I think we may be misunderstanding each other here, so I'll try to clarify- for me sex for pleasure rather than for procreation (or 'strengthening bonds' if you prefer) is not unethical in any way and using contraception to prevent pregnancy resulting from this kind of sex is not unethical in any way either. GF would disagree and say that sex for any reason other than strictly procreation is evil as well as any kind of contraception- an argument based on religious reasons.
I think we are basically in agreement except for semantics. I call it 'shared pleasure', you call it 'strengthening bonds', but I think it amounts to about the same thing. I guess what bothered me about what you wrote was this part-
| Quote: |
| I see absolutely nothing unethical in the notion of a couple who has already had as many children as they can reasonably manage given their circumstances utilizing artificial conception while engaging in intercourse |
What if a couple does not want to have any children but still wants to engage in sexual acts for their own pleasure? Would you say there is something ethically wrong with such a couple using artificial contraception? Because the way you wrote it makes it sound as though there is some moral obligation for people to have as many children as they can afford before they can enjoy sex for it's own sake and start using contraception and I'm wondering if this morality is based on some sort of religious beliefs you hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I see absolutely nothing unethical in the notion of a couple who has already had as many children as they can reasonably manage given their circumstances utilizing artificial conception while engaging in intercourse |
What if a couple does not want to have any children but still wants to engage in sexual acts for their own pleasure? Would you say there is something ethically wrong with such a couple using artificial contraception? Because the way you wrote it makes it sound as though there is some moral obligation for people to have as many children as they can afford before they can enjoy sex for it's own sake and start using contraception and I'm wondering if this morality is based on some sort of religious beliefs you hold. |
Why do they want no children? This is not a frivolous question: ethics is not about some list of rules to follow because, "Hey, it's the rules," it is about achieving a kind of completeness and harmonious integration into the world. Child rearing is a part of the human character, one sufficiently deep that even the desperately poor generally wish to raise children despite the serious cost of it, and sufficiently pressing that even couples who cannot naturally reproduce generally wish to adopt. My uncle and his wife were never able to reproduce due to her infertility, and they never adopted. They have an aura of melancholy about them, such that being around them is depressing. For a couple to willingly choose that path implies that they've been taken in by a false notion of their own natures, and they'll likely regret their choice before the end. It will be far too late by then, of course. Maybe they'll get lucky and be able to distract themselves with petty hobbies until they die.
I am an atheist, so obviously nothing about my position relies upon having particular religious beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| The Church is not going to say "wow, that's harsh", and invent an exception for her, because the Church doesn't have the power or authority to compromise the moral law. It would be a cross for her and her husband, for sure, but as the Council of Trent taught, God will never put anyone in a situation that is too difficult for his soul to overcome, such that sinning becomes acceptable or necessary. |
| GF wrote: |
| Circumspect use of torture can be legitimate, as should be clear from the fact that the Church made official use of it. |
Torture is ok, condoms are evil. This is GF's interpretation of moral law. |
GF should really know better. Torture is against natural law.
| Paul Foriers wrote: |
| Torture violates the natural right of the individual not to accuse himself and to be able to defend himself. This is a natural right which no treaty, no social contract can remove from the individual and which thus remains for the individual a natural prerogative, in the sense put upon it by Thomas Hobbes: 'whatever the criminal answers [under the effect of torture], whether true, false, or whether he remains silent, he has the right to do this in a manner that which seems to him to be just.' Against natural law, torture was condemned by Natural Law theorists in the name of its useless and inefficacity. |
Torture is a direct assault on human dignity, and so ineffective that no circumspection or ticking time bomb can redeem it. |
Who is �Paul Foriers� and what does his blabber about human rights have to do with anything ? You should go to a source like the documents of Vatican II or the CCC. That would be more interesting and effective than some French dude with no Imprimatur quoting a godless philosopher, don�t you think ?
In fact, the status quaestionis is more nuanced. Under the influence of Roman Law, judicial torture was accepted by civil and ecclesiastical authorities for many centuries. St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, not to mention Pope Innocent IV (cf. Ad Extirpanda) are on record regarding judicial torture as, in certain circumstances, unavoidable and useful to the common good. And since causing pain is not in itself immoral or evil, the question is how a legitimate authority may act in defense of the common good, in pursuit of justice and the maintenance of order.
We do have to make distinctions; and contrary to Leon�s dishonest bluster, I didn�t make a blanket statement that �torture is OK�. The type of torture that was authorized by the Church for the purposes of the Inquisitions was carefully delimited. From what I�ve read, it was only allowed as a last resort, in murky cases where normal procedure had resulted in �semi-complete� proof of guilt, once on any given suspect, and in such a way that no lasting bodily harm was caused. Confessions extracted during torture had to be later re-affirmed by the suspect in court, as a protection against false confessions. The Church was very far from authorizing some kind of free-for-all, and if it ever did descend to that (specific cases would bolster your case here, Leon), then that dishonours not the Church, but the men who disobeyed her.
Last edited by GF on Sat May 04, 2013 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| If one is not free to violate the good within a certain context, one lacks autonomy within that context; to coercively restrict another person's internal autonomy is to eliminate that autonomy, and in doing so, to strip them of any dignity that may attend such autonomy. |
To restrict autonomy is not to eliminate autonomy, but only to restrict it.
| Fox wrote: |
| More importantly, perhaps, this coercive threat impacts the dignity of those who would otherwise have voluntarily complied with proper ethical conduct; you do wrong not only to the women who you strap down for 9 months and force to bear that child to term, but also to every single mother who would otherwise utilize her internal autonomy in the service of what is right: the chains such law lay down are always there, even when they don't restrain, and harm our dignity merely by existing. |
I don�t think your claim here disturbs my point that autonomy is a contingent good, since without the more fundamental existence of the good, autonomy (and dignity) would be meaningless. Autonomy can�t be set up as a competing principle, even less as a usurping tyrannical absolute to which the good must pay tribute and never, ever contravene. Until you can wrestle with that, it�s just kind of hysterical and yes, feminist, to say that a law against abortion creates some widening gyre of �indignity� for all women.
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, admittedly, you would be harming them -- and it's harm, make no mistake -- in service of what you saw as a greater good, but as I saw a clever man once mention, "The first principle in Catholic morality is that one cannot do evil so that good may come of it." I like that principle, I like it a lot. To destroy another person's internal autonomy -- much less the internal autonomy of an entire class of people -- is a violation, and thus, no good can come of it. |
Unless you can convince me why your hypothetical opposition of autonomy/dignity and the good is not thoroughly collapsed, I can�t recognize legal restrictions on suicide and self-mutilation as violations of anything, but simply as entirely just restrictions of autonomy.
| Fox wrote: |
| As far as my distinction between internal and external ethical violations goes, I don't think it's especially abstruse. Quite the opposite, I think it's very intuitive; we all have a fairly keen sense of the internal vs the external, it's part of the human experience. Given we recognize this dividing line, and given we admit that ethical violations can occur, the distinction between internal ethical violations and external ethical violations is a fairly elementary one. |
The word internal is badly suited to describe the sins we�re discussing, since suicide and self-mutilation are visible and sensible, and thus externalized acts. An internal moral violation would occur in the psyche, viz., �whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment,� and �whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.� So the distinction you�re making does exist, but not exactly where you think it does; and while the essence of the violation does not change as it proceeds from interior to exterior, it does become punishable when by external manifestation it violates the virtue of justice, for which the state is responsible.
Does the relationship one has to one�s own body mean that self-mutilation and suicide typically have different causes than mutilation and murder, which alter the practical approach that should be taken to punishing crimes of this sort ? I think a good case can be made for that.
Does that alter the nature of the violations that fall to either side of it, with reference to the virtue of justice ? It does not. Suicide is self-murder, and every bit as much a crime against the political community; the state has a duty to intervene. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I said nothing of the definition of life nor disqualifying characteristics for such. |
We were discussing the personhood of the fetus. The analogy was intended to illustrate that viability is a poor qualifier for personhood. If you didn't want to discuss that, you shouldn't have replied to my post or the analogy. |
No, you were discussing the "personhood" of the fetus because its your only argument: "We've no good measure of what makes a person a person, so abortion - at any stage - is immoral." The rest of the people debating your argument from motives are trying to point out that the abortion issue is not so black and white. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
