Posted on 08/27/2010 6:52:49 AM PDT by markomalley
No, that’s the different between “opinion” and “fact.” Moral questions are questions of fact, independent of individuals’ beliefs. Drunk driving, for example, is either morally wrong, or it’s morally acceptable. Whichever it is, is independent of whether you or I or 1,000 randomly selected likely voters think it’s right or wrong.
I agree and I would go as far as to say contraception has been an enabler (not a cause) of immorality. Just as guns have enabled more people to commit murder.
It would be just as wrong to ban contraception as it would to ban guns. Both serve a purpose in society and there will always be cases where those tools are used for evil purposes.
And since no 'precaution is 100%, is abortion acceptable? If they are 'cut out to be parents' under regular cicumstances, but later the child is injured and permantently handicapped, what then?
I disagree. "Contraceptives" are tools - a device or a drug - but "contraception" is an action. A gun is a tool, but shooting it is an action.
Actions can be morally neutral, but I don't believe sexual behavior generally falls in that category. Our country - our entire society as it's been constructed - is on the verge of self-destructing largely over sexual behavior and its consequences.
“Catholics are of the opinion all contraception is amoral, most of us are not Catholic”
Liberal Catholics agree with most other sorts of Christians on birth control. Liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics disagree on this issue. I don’t think you could find a liberal Catholic who digs abortion, “gay marriage”, and homosexualist clergy in “relationships” who also doesn’t think the Church is wrong on birth control.
Freegards
The opinion of society is that drunk driving is immoral because it risks the life of others. If in the future we no longer value life the way we do now then the opinion of drunk driving could change, meaning it is not a fact that drunk driving is immoral.
Religious beliefs allow an individual to establish truths based on faith and the word of God. This is where science and religion get into trouble. What may be a matter of opinion to a scientist is considered a fact by a religious individual.
I do not condemn that as extremist, let me pose a few possible answers.
I do not know if the progressives are right or wrong. I believe in the concept of absolute truth, but I believe it exists for each individual that God creates, and differs from person to person.
I think because, in the past, the church wanted to increase it’s members.
Perhaps, it wasn’t morally wrong prior to 1930?
Excellent article and it points out what I have long argued is the truth about the root of society’s growing acceptance of homosexual behavior.
Their 19th child, a girl, was born at only 25 weeks and has endured many serious medical complications. I think we can say the little one has suffered. All this because her mother developed "pregnancy-induced high blood pressure."
In addition to using the vast resources of our healthcare system, the birth has no doubt put a huge strain on the entire family. When does it end? When Mrs. Duggar's body finally gives out and she dies in childbirth at #27?
It is the same technology and progress that gives us both artificial contraception and the medical advancements that keet the Duggar baby alive.
I consider it immoral to bring a child into the world with the knowledge that it will suffer because you cannot support it. Either abstain from sex or use contraception but do not knowingly and purposely cause suffering based on a personal belief (that makes it selfish).
As always, it’s a heart issue that’s the problem, not a legal issue.
Madison:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
“Society as a whole gets to decide what is morally acceptable”
Really? You believe morality should be based on something as changable as society and not on an absolute Truth based on natural law and/or God’s word?
How true. If only there were a test for altruism among men. Most of the time it is the those who do not want the responsibility that make the best leaders.
I find birth control conceptually amoral. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil.
I find nothing morally wrong with attempting pregnancy prevention within marriage. The concept of healthy moral sexuality remains the same ... between a loving married couple (that is prepared to have children). “Prepared” does not necessarily mean they are currently intending to get pregnant. I don’t think this makes marital sex a more “selfish” act — the Song of Solomon is pretty clear that sex for pleasure is not immoral.
The fact is, if God disagrees ... He can (and will) override (I can vouch for this fact). Birth control or not, it is ultimately in His hands.
Birth control when used for the purpose of allowing sexual promiscuity, unmarried intercourse, etc., etc. is a tool of evil.
SnakeDoc
There are innumerable mutually exclusive claims about what is and is not “natural law” and/or “God’s word”. Ultimately, human society has to sort them out, accepting some and rejecting others.
Yeah, and humans are SO capable of determining what is and what is not God’s Word...
gimme a break.
As I also added, you and I may not agree or go along with what society believes. Our reality does not equal society’s reality but we have to answer for violations of society’s code of conduct.
I have many opinions of truth that I know much of society would not agree with. Because I cannot prove my position they are simply opinions, that many I associate with also share my views simply reinforces their “truth”.
It’s important to separate the word of God from mans opinions. One changes all the time the other is set in stone. I know that over time many things will become acceptable to society, I didn’t say it made it right. It’s better to understand your fellow man and his intentions than hold judgment over his failings to your standards.
>> I consider it immoral to bring a child into the world with the knowledge that it will suffer because you cannot support it. Either abstain from sex or use contraception but do not knowingly and purposely cause suffering based on a personal belief (that makes it selfish).
What level of “suffering” is required before life is no longer worth living? Are you confident enough in your answer to decide that someone else will suffer too much to make their life worthwhile?
Giving life always creates the opportunity for suffering ... but also the opportunity for happiness. Some of the happiest people I have ever encountered have endured some of the worst suffering.
SnakeDoc
Do you have a difficult time figuring out whether or not to believe whether or not what the Koran says is the word of God?
Are you human?
Q.E.D.
I know how to read,
and I know how to exegetically read God’s Word in the Bible.
When ANY assertion is contrary, it should be rejected as not true.
It is NOT my judgement, it is the clear reading of the revealed Word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.