(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See, and that's the strange part to me. You get angry at people who think IVF is not moral, but Pyrrho (and others here) just straight up said they think having kids is immoral and that they look down on people who have kids. No outrage there?

First off, I haven't actually read through the other thread where Pyrrho and others allegedly made those comments. As a general rule, I only respond to comments I've actually read or heard others make. Argument by hearsay is just not my style.

And no, I don't get automatically outraged when other people have a different opinion about an issue that matters to me. But you seem to be conflating two separate issues. Based on what you've said, Pyrrho isn't interested in the precise method of reproduction (good old fashioned fucking vs. IVF), he has an issue with reproduction itself. Totally different discussion.

Yes, it is a totally different discussion.  If I thought reproduction were fine, I would have no problems whatsoever with IVF.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote: For what it's worth, I think it's rather disingenuous of you to try manipulate my comments into a discussion about what some unrelated poster said.

Yes.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote: Plus, as far as I know, Pyrrho hasn't actively tried to stop couples from reproducing using non-fucking methods, like IVF. The Catholic Church has tried to use it's influence to prohibit reproduction by IVF. It's one thing to hold an opinion on an issue: it's quite another to try and make it public policy.

I have made no effort to prevent people from reproducing, other than saying that I do not believe it is a good idea to do it.  I have made no particular effort against IVF.  Stopping IVF would be like stopping a tiny leak in a boat while ignoring a huge gaping hole in it.  That would just be silly.  There is no reason to single out IVF for different consideration.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote: So, CL, you agree with your church that masturbation and IVF are immoral? Don't deflect to Pyrrho (an others here), just answer the question.

Pyrrho, I'm not going after you here at all. Frankly, I find it a bit annoying that Catholic_Lady has evaded my main complaint about the Catholic Church's doctrine on IVF by trying to focus the attention on your opinion of reproduction.

It is fine.  It is okay if you do express disagreement with me.  From your actions, I know that in the past, at least, you disagreed with me on this matter.  If you changed your mind now, you still need to properly raise your children anyway, so it is not likely to change the actions that you should be doing at this point.

Obviously, I know plenty of people who have disagreed with me on this.  Like my parents.  Disagreeing with people and hating them are two different things.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Javaman Wrote: Except of course, for  the Catholic Church who, as a matter of doctrine, has already decided that my family is lesser because of some nonsense about the unitive and procreative aspects of fucking.

This is incorrect.

Yes, we believe IVF is not a moral means of reproduction, but that does not mean the Church teaches that families are lesser or that kids are lesser if they came from IVF. If any Catholic holds that position, it is their own personal position, and not a teaching of the Church.

Oh I see. You prefer to engage in a semantic dance about your doctrine.
Let me ask you this: Is 50% lesser than 100%?
Because, according to your church's doctrine, IVF is missing half of the "meaning" of sexual reproduction.
Pope Paul VI said that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”

If there's no unitive meaning (whatever the hell that actually means) in IVF, then isn't an IVF baby only half complete?
It's funny how one your popes can say that the connection is unbreakable, but then condemns those who actually find a way to "break" that connection. Weak sauce, to be sure.

(August 5, 2015 at 11:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So after starting this thread yesterday, I've noticed that a lot of atheists neither like children nor want them. Some even went as far as to say it's immoral to have them.

Who said it was immoral to have children? Please point them out to me so that I may destroy their idiotic logic.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I meant the decision to have children.  I made no comment on the morality of abortion.

When you decide to have a child, presumably, you are hoping that the child's life will be more good than bad, right?  But, of course, you cannot know in advance that that will be the case.  Maybe it will be, maybe it won't.  The thing is, you are taking a chance not with your life, but with someone else's life (your child's life).  It might be that it works out okay, but you are gambling with someone else's future when you make your decision.  That gambling with someone else's future is morally problematic.

To make the idea more clear to you, suppose I were to do something that potentially affected your future happiness, such that you could be very happy, or very unhappy, or anything in between.  And imagine I do this without your consent.  Would you regard my action as morally okay?  

The thing is, that is EXACTLY what one is doing when one decides to have a child.  One is gambling with the future of someone else, without their consent.

Can't it be simply because people have reproductive instincts regardless of how happy they want their future children to be?

An instinctual desire to have sex is not the same as an instinctual desire to have children.  I am inclined to accept that the former is an instinctual desire, but I have seen no evidence that the latter is an instinctual desire.  It seems more related to socialization than instinct.

Also, something being an instinctual desire does not mean that it has no connection to morality.  For the example of sex, consider rape and cheating on someone when one has promised to be faithful.  Having an instinctual desire does not excuse all actions based on that desire.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Since a fetus is not a life, it's pretty much irrational to talk about this. ...

That is irrelevant.  The decision is about whether or not to create a life, and the moral question is whether it is right to create a life or not.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:41 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: CL what exactly is immoral about IVF? Am I missing something?

Unitive property.

Duh.


Totally makes sense now, doesn't it?

Edit: Plus the guy has to masturbate, which is obviously a sin. God doesn't want any of the quadrillions of sperm produced by every single man he's ever created not to result in another Christian.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: An instinctual desire to have sex is not the same as an instinctual desire to have children.  I am inclined to accept that the former is an instinctual desire, but I have seen no evidence that the latter is an instinctual desire.

The way nature designed it, it is intended. It's only that humans do make that distinction. Animals, as far as we know, do not. The instinct to have sex is a reproductive instinct to preserve the species.

I understand what (I believe) are Rob and Pyrrho's objections to having kids - you're essentially gambling that their lives will be better than your own, and they cannot consent to it.  IMO, that's a strong argument for free access to contraceptives and access to places like Planned Parenthood, which isn't just an abortion clinic.

No one is served by people simply popping out babies.  It becomes a drain on resources across the board - food, water, shelter, fuel, entitlements, etc.  And the numbers show that upward socioeconomic movement is largely a myth.  No matter what economic level you're born into, you're far, far more likely to stay there or drop than move up.  Therefore, the moral thing to do is not have babies if you cannot afford to support them.

Abstinence is a pipe dream.  People, young people especially, are going to fuck.  If Bristol Palin, a poster child for conservative Christian values, can't adhere to abstinence, then it's foolish to think that other people can, or even should.

A town in Colorado experimented with opening access to contraceptives to teens and low-income people.  Not only did the unwanted birth rate plummet, so did the number of abortions: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/health/col...index.html

This is the kind of thing we need to implement on a national level.  It's not about condoning premarital sex.  Kids are already having it.  It's never going to stop.  It's about having it happen safely, and without being a drain on the rest of society.  It's about people having kids when they can actually support them.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, we believe IVF is not a moral means of reproduction

In what way is IVF not a moral means of reproduction, exactly?

(August 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I'm not sure atheists as a group really are less likely to have or want kids.  I think your perception might be a correlation error.

I agree, I think it comes from the fact that most atheists don't turn their vaginas into a clown car like a lot of religious people do.  The people who have a shit-ton of kids, those aren't atheists by and large, they're idiots who think God keeps giving them kids and don't understand how to stop it.

(August 5, 2015 at 5:01 pm)\abaris Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: An instinctual desire to have sex is not the same as an instinctual desire to have children.  I am inclined to accept that the former is an instinctual desire, but I have seen no evidence that the latter is an instinctual desire.

The way nature designed it, it is intended. It's only that humans do make that distinction. Animals, as far as we know, do not. The instinct to have sex is a reproductive instinct to preserve the species.

I'm wary about the descriptors "designed" and "intended". But I digress.

Otherwise I agree. The instinct to reproduce is perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of living organisms. The only purpose in life we can be sure of is to pass on our DNA to future generations.

How that characteristic actually manifests behaviourally is a whole other discussion.