Domestics violence

Domestic violence: is any violent act committed by a person on the position of a role marital, sexual, parental care, other people with mutual roles. 

Forms under which domestic violence can occur are: physical abuse of spouses, parents of physical abuse on children, emotional abuse between spouses, parents' emotional abuse on children, parents on sexual abuse of children, problems related to alcohol and drugs that influence. 

Physical abuse of spouseIn addition to the specific offenses under the Criminal Code, that bigamy, adultery, abandonment of family, unfortunately, and violence has taken place in the family generating crimes of homicide, causing death strikes, serious bodily injury, rape followed by death of the victim infanticide, incest and child maltreatment.Cases of domestic violence and objective conditions mainly relate to the characteristics of each individual biopsihologice temperament, character, personality, emotional and volitional states. Among these may be mentioned: the low level of culture and education of offenders, negative behavioral traits, tendencies toward violence, alcohol abuse (common or accidentally), the challenges come from the victims, exacerbating the instinct of ownership. 

The costs of violence in the family environment appear to be similar to those of murder and violent attack. Most incidents occur during fights or other interaction temper, insulting remarks or gestures are initiated by one party, causing the other revenge. 

Domestic violence has two dimensions: male violence against women - and much publicized fact rooted in patriarchal oriented people in conservative countries, and male violence against women, little known fact, but confirmed by studies conducted in the last three decades by specialists USA. 

Violence against womenDomestic violence involving a manifestation of power in the compensatory individuals who feel small and powerless in other circles, reaching to overfill the tank protected in the context of relationships in which power is legitimated by assigning them to positions and roles in the relationship ( patriarchal ideology). Research shows that power decreases as the victim in the relationship, increase the likelihood of abuse of power generating and enhancing the gap in relation to violence. 

Targeting violence in the context of marital conflict may take two directions: each of the participants to be potentially abusive marriage, that victim. It appears that men hunt and kill their wives when they often leave them, women are doing so only in exceptional cases. Men kill their usually wives after they have undergone a long period of abuse involving physical violence or aggression: mutual, in such cases is rarely valid. 

Violence against menThe unfortunate reality is that men are victims of domestic violence as often as women. Men's violence against women is a phenomenon well documented, in fact ignored by both media and society. Following several studies have reported that in most cases of violence against men by women had used the weapon. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that women realize the physical strength of men and therefore used mainly as a defense weapon. 

Numerous studies have produced statistics that claim that women's anger often manifests itself in violent acts and especially against family members, for example:- 55% of all crime on the boys (girls) involving a woman murderer- 44% of all crime on the spouses involves killing a woman;- 33% of the families involved killing a woman murderer- 18% of the parents of killers involving a woman criminal. 

Media continue to assign the control and domination of men only. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that women are as dominant and willing to control their own way as men. Domestic violence should not be tolerated. We need to recognize and prevent it. Unfortunately, there is a long way to learn the lesson of mutual responsibility in the long-term relationships, regardless of their dynamics. And it is necessary to prevent domestic violence. 

Women and men are equally responsible for domestic violence. Domestic violence is not the fault of men or women. It has both it - a problem. Both men and women, are engaged in this game of mutual destruction, the inability to create intimacy and appreciate differences. 

Physical abuse of children by parentsEach type of civilization select a particular type of normative behavior accepted as "good treatment of the child" beyond the beginning, however, maltreatment, that the abusive behavior. The concept of abuse is generally a deliberate action that hurt the child, affecting her physical and mental health. Ill be considered as a phenomenon that occurs when parents or educators are harmful treatments applied to children, and could cause damage to organic or psychiatric disorders. Variations abuse fall on a wide range of intensities, from ill loose, simple neglect (indifference towards the basic needs of the child and to care), or different forms of emotional abuse (insults, irony, humiliation, unrealistic demands or constraints, verbal violence), to forms of physical abuse (beating, torture, exploitation by taking the work inconsistent with age), and sexual abuse. Parents who maltreat their children are often vulnerable, with a range of psychological and educational problems that are unable to solve them.

God - Philosophical Concept

Philosophical idea of God fails in a more or less as poor an explanation of the unknown hiding behind a name.

Absolute God will be called pure expression of this theory, the moving in all things in themselves as still as the starting element, everything will be found in God and the pure act, lacks potency and can be created by stacking of attributes by others, is also close to that name.

Philosophical vision far not want any religious nor atheist, because, anyway, as demonstrated by Mircea Eliade, and most atheists believe they will find, under a certain lens, the actions in a hidden symbol of religious practice.

This brings the name of the concept, the concept of God becomes more ambiguous as they are taken into account the different theories of the great thinkers. They join several ideologies, some based on ideas of their predecessors, but careful analysis answers the questions they are only suspended in uncertainty, for in this race to define and prove the existence of such absolute proof is based on a logic of intangible, designed out of necessity in intangible and even thrown in a game whose stakes are torn between security and insecurity of a gain or loss.

It therefore seeks an existence in itself, a tangibility of inexplicable, beyond what man is he and duplicate (in body and spirit), which exceeds the limits ştiinţificului an existence (immanent), self-sufficient, indisputable of ignorance and necessity.

Thomas Aquinas points out five ways to say it is proven the existence of God. There are theories same logical philosophers own when he wants at any price to achieve a goal. He wants, but without concrete relative to a science as philosophy. Either philosophy is not mathematics, or pure physical but a metaphysical - is an ongoing debate of philosophical issues that are just for their failure to attain a fixed form.

"God's existence can be demonstrated in five events ..." he says in "Summa Theologica".

But it will be credible evidence, a demonstration that is deducted from the contingency and necessity?

Blaise Pascal, the "Thoughts", subject to all risk a bet equal opportunity for gain or loss on the idea of whether there is a God, in a slightly ironic comment, as in "Memorial" to find a text with a confession that fits in mystical thought, adherents of this view by saying that God's existence must be a compelling state entirely different bill, such as ecstasy, being accompanied by a sense of certainty superior lighting.

The link to the concept of God and morality, more strongly linked to religion here, creating a supreme judge of everything we do and, outside of religion as the ultimate judge of his own conscience (Immanuel Kant - Metaphysics of morals ").

It seems that, over time and, as a special reference, history of philosophy, encompassing the concept of God questions remained the same at the base, but continues to test responses and awareness of răscolească illustrious minds, giving them the choice are approaching each other, or are moving towards the opposite pole, and although the law of physics is that opposites attract, giving rise to strong controversy.         

Abortion - Negative freedom

     Abortion is the most obvious expression of the moral collapse of a nation, as it is an act of aggression directed against the most innocent beings and most defenseless. Abortion is not a solution without consequences. "He hit the mother, the child in a couple hits, hit the company strikes in God ..."
     The daily life of our century has made medical practice called: abortion commonplace in every corner possible strada.Multe women do not consider the negative implications of such a medical act and is subject several times annually. Abortion can not be compared with the ingestion of tablets or removal of a tooth. There are two camps that divide two different ideas:

1. First, I think for reasons both religious and secular, that an embryo has the right to life. For religious reasons, women should not oppose the will of God to bear a child. Secular reasons, those who support it, consider that the fetus is a human being who has the right to life (in their view, abortion is equal to murder).

2. The others, feminists, believe that a woman's right to decide what happens to his body. They believe that the embryo is a female body part. For example: if a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, they believe she has the right to abortion.

     In some cases women abort because of poor access to information about contraception or because of problems with the contraceptive method adopted. Women who become pregnant through rape or incest often choose abortion ptr, while others may choose it as a way to save their lives.
     Many women choose abortion as a result of bringing the fatusului aware of certain defects. The number of abortions committed in this complaint will no doubt increase as prenatal tests become increasingly common and more frequent.
     For many women, the decision whether or not abortion is a very agonizing and is taken only after it considered the potential benefit of mother and child, and all those involved.
     J.J. Thomson said: "I propose therefore to accept that the unborn child, from conception, a person. If we admit this, as now continue the argument? As we understand, something like this. Everyone has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has the right to decide what will happen with his body, everyone will accept it. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more strigent than the mother's right to decide what happens with her body. Therefore can not be uncis fetus can not have an abortion. "
     Sometimes abortion is not made because of an unwanted pregnancy, but because the woman or fatusului life is in danger if the pregnancy progresses. Every year, in Romania, dozens of women die due to abortion. Abortion performed empirical conditions of uncertainty, may be followed by major complications, which, with all the treatment, can lead to disability throughout life or even death. Even if in certain situations, an abortion was not that marked, female body reaction to this aggression is unpredictable, and development is most often to serious complications. Abortion, even if performed safely care, may be followed by serious and difficult to treat complications such as infection and bleeding. These complications can lead to further suffering or to sterility. Repeated abortions due to blood loss and the potential for complications, may lead to progressive weakening of femeii.Avortul health is the issue today and tomorrow's consequences. Abortion leaves a deep wound in the woman's soul, attacking the very essence of her identity, that of being mother to give birth to life. There are few women who consider abortion to their partner's desire. Many women, having gone through an abortion, come to believe that by that act of killing her child consented. Therefore, once the heaviest punishment is the guilt. They believe that all the unfortunate events that have outlived their abortion were inevitable because they deserved. They are tense, have difficulty concentrating, and restless sleep. This anxiety is generated largely by the conflict between women's moral standards and her decision to abort. In the post-abortion woman is likely to go through a depression, to be tested by feelings of worthlessness. This can lead to thoughts of suicide, but few women who have undergone an abortion go to the stage of clinical depression. Usually, the feeling of pain occurs around the anniversary date of abortion once recalling the painful experience of abortion sequences. Abortion is unpleasant experience for any woman. Whether it's caused a miscarriage or a pain is the same. Pain is felt when a life away, but this time a life that was not given a chance. Post-abortion syndrome may occur immediately after surgery or even after several ani.Acesta is the inability of women to express their feelings about pregnancy and abortion question. In addition, she is unable to reconcile the loss and reach a state of inner peace.
     Civic organizations consider signing the bill that is on the agenda of the three committees - Judiciary Committee, the committee of human rights and equality commission sanse.Trebuie amended to eliminate confusing and contradictory provisions that increase the risk of future abusive interpretations which could endanger the physical integrity of women's right to dispose of her body and the right to privacy and familie.Drepturile women, whether married, are in partnership relationships, married but living alone, divorced, widowed Or that are not listed in any of the situations can not be restricted or eliminated. They have the right to take autonomous decisions regarding all aspects of their health status.
     There are philosophers who believe that moral philosophy needs a philosophical logic, an example is Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson authored an article on abortion, rightly praised for its ingenuity and vivacity examples.
     "In writing about abortion, the focus was mainly on what may or may not make a person A3a in response to the abortion of a person. In a sense, this concentration of attention is incomprehensible, because there are many women and can cause one to a safe abortion. To treat the problem in this way does not agree that the status of the mother which, on the other hand, they insist so much in terms of fetus. Because we can not deduce what a person can do what another can do.
     Let us call the position where abortion is prohibited after even when it comes to save the life of the mother "extreme position. " I want to show first that it does not arise as a conclusion of the argument that I mentioned earlier if not add some pretty strong assumptions. Suppose that a woman became pregnant and now suffers from a heart problem that will cause death at birth. What can be done ptr it? Fetus as a person has the right to life. But as the mother in turn is a person and she has the right to life. It is assumed that the mother and fetus has an equal right to life. How can it derives from here that abortion is not allowed? If the mother and child have an equal right to life, should we not give a coin to decide ptr? Or should I add the right to life of the mother her right to decide what happens with his body as that everyone seems willing to accept? now exceeds the sum of its rights as important fatusului right to life.
     This place is the next most familiar argument. We are told that abortion is to make uncizi child directly, while doing nothing does not mean to kill her mother, only to let it die.
     Furthermore, killing an innocent person to kill the child because the child has not committed any crime and he aims his mother's death.
     The argument can be continued on a variety of ways: as direct killing of innocent people is a crime, murder is always and absolutely unacceptable, we can not allow an abortion. Or, as our duty not to directly kill an innocent person is more damaged than the duty not to let a person die, then you prefer to let a person die and thus can not allow an abortion.
     Course extreme position could be weakened as follows: we say that if we allow abortion to save mother's life ptr, yet he can not be challenged by a third person, but only by the mother herself. But even this position can not be correct. Because we have to take into account the fact that the mother and unborn child are not like "two tenants" in a small house that has been entrusted, through unfortunate mistake, both of: the house is "owned" by the mother. This increases the difficulty to infer the conclusion that the mother can not do anything ptr as a person can not do anything A3a. But not only that: such is put into a clearer light the assumption that a third person can not nimic.Anume, to observe a third person who says: <<Do you can choose between doi>> is fooling himself if he thinks that means fairness. Should we really question: what basis does this <<nimeni can not alega>> as long as the body that holds the child's mother? It may just be unable to take account of this last fact. But it could be about something more interesting, namely that you have the right to refuse to use violence against people, even when it would be just and right thing to do, even when it seems right for someone to do it.
     When the mother's life is in danger, the argument which I mentioned at the beginning seems more convincing: "Everyone has the right to life, so the unborn person has, in turn, the right to life." But is it right to life child is more important than any mother could provide basis for an abortion, to exept her own right to life?
     This argument treats the right to life as it would not raise any problem. It should, indeed, ask ourselves what it means to have the right to life? According to some, to have the right to life means having the right to receive even the minimum necessary to continue to live. But what happens if, say, that the minimum a person needs to continue living is something he has no right to receive it? Sometimes the problem arises right to life in a more strictly. It admits that it does not include the right to receive something, but consists solely in the right not to be killed by anyone. Here is a similar difficulty. We take as given the fact that if a pregnancy due to rape, the mother gave no unborn person's right to use the body food and shelter ptr.
     Suppose that a woman accept voluntary sexual intercourse and is aware of the possibility that they have resulted in a pregnancy and then remain indeed pregnant, is she not responsible ptr this fact for the very existence of her unborn person? No doubt that she invited her inside. Challenge an abortion would amount to deprivation of the unborn something and therefore he is entitled to commit an injustice to him.
     In this case the question would also question whether a woman may or may not even kill him to save his own life: if he voluntarily gave his life, how could now kill even to save his own life?
     I finish just as I started saying that my argument is based on an ethical theory developed, this theory provides the logical foundation of the golden rule. Also, although not based on a utilitarian principle, it provides the basis for a certain kind of utilitarianism which avoids the defects that are usually utilitarian theories. But I now try to justify the last assertion. If they have the perspective that we have moved it in this work are called into question, the dispute can not wear ethical theory than the land itself. It is therefore regrettable that so many people think they can talk about abortion without clarify their views on fundamental issues. "

About Reincarnation

     Information about reincarnation existed (and exists) in the Bible and some apocryphal texts. Sentence of the first centuries the Church has accepted reincarnation, supported by Jesus. In 553, however, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, reincarnation has been anathema sentence, considered as a dogmatic error. Emperor Justinian (exactly-why his "damned be he who, from now on, we believe in pre-existence of the soul") has imposed its own clergy or creed, to be arrested Pope Vigilius (to not disturb the council!) and forced the bishops to accept the new dogma. Justinian considered reincarnation grant humanity a sentence too long time to reach a higher stage of consciousness development.
     After the year 553, the faithful were told by the church as they provide one life to return to the stage again before committing the original sin.
Justinian's new sentence, massively propagated among parishioners everywhere during the next centuries, continued till today, has led to errors and behaviors of older people, mostly trying to live a full life so-called unique.
The church gradually excluded almost all texts, documents, and the 31 apocryphal gospels, inconsistent new lines drawn dogmatic. With all the censorship imposed by original texts, and were kept in places some references to the reincarnation of Jesus (Gospel of John [3.1 to 8], also Jesus'statements about the prophet Elijah reincarnated in the body of John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel [11.14 and 17.10 to 13], or the words of Jesus the Pharisees about the fact that he would once have lived on earth, before the patriarch Abraham [Gospel of John, from 8.56 to 58]). Other biblical passages without evidence of reincarnation: "Jeremiah" (1:5), "The Book of Wisdom" (2.5 and 8.20), "The Book of Kohelet (12.6),"The Gospel of Matthew "(26 , 52), "The Gospel of John" (9.1 to 3), "Epistle to the Philippians" (2.6 to 7), "Epistle of James" (3.6). Also, the documents canonical (apocryphal): "The Gospel of Pistis Sophia, " "Gospel of Thomas " to




 

TIME PROBLEM

    We can ask not only what exists, why is there that exists, but how they exist. From the latter perspective, we refer to the existence of size and features, such as space, time, order, determination.
     Space and time were considered fundamental determinations, ways of being, in general, and of every thing. About anything can truly say it exists only to the extent that occupies a space in a particular time.
     In a broad sense, space is understood through the categories coexistence (left - front right - back, top - bottom), and during the sequence categories (before - after) or duration (more - less). Space is a chain of "places" and during a succession of moments.
     With reference to space and time, we can talk about a more important problem-type, and that is: If
a) objective (independent of our experience, our way of perceiving reality)
b) subjective (single perspectives or ways of understanding human existence)
     The distinction between objective and subjective time is intuitive.
Ex: For a person who says an examination time can run faster, but the same person may believe that time can run hard when someone is waiting.
     It is even possible that the flow of time in similar situations to be lived differently by different people.
Ex: A person who has learned for the exam may feel that time passes slowly, but for someone who has taught at the same time and it will seem that it was much harder.   
     On the other hand, the perception of time talking about living or implicitly assumes the existence objectively. The problem is not so if time exists, but whether we can ever know what time itself, independent of our way of living or our knowledge.
     Moments of time - past, present and future - so-called arrow indicates the time: it flows in one direction, irreversibly, from past to viitor.Oamenii have always been fascinated by the idea of cyclical return of all things or the possibility of time travel.
     Talking about an arrow of time, scientists and philosophers concerned with this issue, especially spotlighted character irreversibility of time, demon ¬ strabil with different arguments. Unidimensionalităţii most general aspect is the transition from the past through the present into the future, we can discuss the unidimensionalităţii unique flow and sense of time, so imposible ¬ bility to achieve the road opposite.
     The main argument in this case is the causal chains, unable occur before the cause and effect, most often causal relations note sequence, the effect of continuing to exist and to act as stop the cause, but obviously as a result of its action.
     Gradually the outlines for the twentieth century, more in ¬ not consistently, diversified approach to quality time. Spe ¬ cificitatea temporal coordinate forces to distinguish between cosmic time (astronomy), physical time, the biolo ¬ GIC, human (individual and social).
     The biologic, widely researched, although still in an incipient form, put the first issue of differences between physical time (chronologically) and biologically, so that biological time can not always be measured in physical time units. This can be illustrated with different rates of maturation and aging of various organisms. But highlighting the different dead ¬ rite, one can say that time is dilated young body than the old body, whereas the second life of a young body is rich in physiological processes. For a child, so the day is longer than the mature man, because they occur in much more events and be ¬ ziologic plan and psychically, so the activity is more intense.
     Plato says that before the birth of the sky, there were days and nights, months and years, and the Demiurge (the name given to the philosophy of Plato, who forged the world divine creator, the creator of the universe, ie God), so did they appear with the composition of the universe.
     All these are part of the time and both "was" and "will" are forms born of time which, Plato says, they wrongly attributes of eternal existence. For we say "was" is "and"will "but only" is "fits a real speech, while " was "and"will "refers to making that takes place in time because they are movements, while what is always the same and no building can not become older or younger with time, and never once was, is not now, nor will it ever be in the making.
     When asked what is time? St. Augustine says, even if time is both familiar and unknown, who could easily and briefly explain this? We understand what he is talking about when we hear about it, but St. Augustine says that if nobody asks, you know, and if he wants to explain to someone who asks, do not know. So our mind is the time to understand as to explain in words but is much more difficult.
     But St. Augustine says that he can assert with confidence that it would not pass anything if there would be long gone and would not come if something is not for the future and if there would be nothing, would not be long now.
     And "This, however, if it ever present in the past and would not pass, there would be time but eternity. "