Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?Sure Iíll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If itís done only for fun, itís being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.
Abortion Ė violates #3
Contraception Ė violates #4
All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.
Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason. I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:
- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well. You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4. So, no gay sex. No sex between old people. No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month. Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex. You're working against the intent of God.
The only faith-based point is #1
The rest follows from reason.
Sheez, I'm continually accused of wanting to control others. Not so. I hope you exercise your own free will to make moral choices.
Ovum is not a person.
God 'meant us to....have consequence free sex'? You made me smile, thanks.
Thank you for the dialog Acroy. It is becoming increasingly rare that people are willing to share their views if they disagree with others. I welcome other perspectives.
I certainly do not consider this topic to be a hijack of this thread. As it relates to Trump, it looks like religion and faith is WAY more important to him than it originally appeared. I would be interested in hearing from people that voted for him to tell us whether his faith was an important factor in voting for him.
I did not see him talk all that much about his faith, so was it just known and not said, or did the trump voters get a more religious president then they realized? I believe one of his latest opinions on abortion was to maintain the status quo, for example.
I disagree with you about your points. I see all of them as only faith based.
#2. Without faith in the first part it is impossible to reach the conclusions of the remainder. I do not have faith that god made man and woman and do not agree with your reason of human life. There may not be reason at all.
#3. Assumes faith that human life is somehow defined to be more important than all other life. I see no reason why the universe is all here for man. Earth and the universe will survive man. Of course there will be no need for "proof" :)
#4. Not really that big of a deal. I've seen birds do it(really), bees do it(ok, lying here). Everything we see does it, or leaves this earth eventually. Some even appear to do it before they are even born! http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/
Some would even argue that some humans that have sex in order to procreate are the ones that are abusing (the poor or people of differing races for examples). I am "fixed". It is no longer for procreation for me. I agree with you that it is fun :) I in no way believe this is abuse. My wife and I just don't swing that way,not that there is anything wrong with that (funny if you watch Seinfeld).
#5. Marriage can be a religious act, but it also maintains a legal status in the US. The legal status is very important to me, because of the advantages it gives me. The religious act means nothing to me. Legal advantages should not have been given to marriage, but since there are some, all should be allowed to advantage from them. I would be fine with government recognizing zero marriages but giving legal advantage to "something else", like civil unions, as long as all are invited to benefit.
I see Guitar said much the same thing, but since I took the time to write it, I will post it anyway. Have a great day