Quote:1. The Church teaches that IVF is not moral.

Of course, church "teachings" don't count for much around here.

(August 5, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Javaman Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:  
1. The Church teaches that IVF is not moral.

2. I don't know. Just because something is not moral, does not mean the person who did it will go to Hell. There are many many factors that go along with it, and it is not my place to speculate. That's God's job.

3. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." -CCC

1. "Just because" doesn't really answer my question.

2. If you don't know and, presumably, your church doesn't know, then why should anyone pay any attention to what they have to say? What are these factors that need to be considered?

3. Okay, so my sin is "less reprehensible". Maybe.

Still comes across as a load of presuppositionalist BS. It's still not clear whether I'll suffer as much in hell as a rapist because I masturbated into a test tube. Not sure why it's so hard for your church to figure out which is a worse act. I'm pretty sure anyone with a shred of common sense would have no difficulty determining which act is the greater crime.

1. Not sure what you mean. I was answering your question of "what does the Church teach", and answered it to the point. Not sure where the "just because" came from.

2. No one knows who went to hell, or who is going to hell. That doesn't mean we can't believe certain things are immoral. Judge the sin, not the sinner and all that.

3. I didn't copy and paste the paragraph that came right before that. They were saying it's less reprehensible when doing IVF involving only the married couple versus just using a stranger's egg/sperm and using a surrogate. It wasn't comparing it to rape, because rape is on a whole other level.

(August 5, 2015 at 7:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I was born via C-section,  Is that not placing the power of doctors and the domination of technology over my origin and destiny?

So was I and my brother. Ferdinand Adolf Kehrer did a lot more for human progress than any pope in history.

(August 5, 2015 at 8:17 pm)massey904 Wrote: Atheists do favor abortion so I could understand why they don't like kids

(August 5, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:1. The Church teaches that IVF is not moral.

Of course, church "teachings" don't count for much around here.

Oh I know. But someone asked me what Church teaching was, so I was answering his question.

I can't speak for how I'll feel in the future, I'm only 21, but as things stand I don't plan on having any. If I do have any, I'll adopt rather than have my own.

I don't dislike children at all, I'm just a bit of a pessimist about the world. I've had issues with depression in my life, and I can't bring a kid into the world with the possibility that they might have to deal with some of the shit I've had. I don't like the world either, between fanatic violent lunatics, the preventable financial crisis, a classist elitist society and the elephant in the room - glabal warming - that nobody wants to deal with, I don't want to bring a kid into this to deal with all the shit that comes with being here. It's not worth it. All those things are preventable, but I don't trust people to prevent them.

(August 5, 2015 at 7:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 3. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." -CCC

I really hate that quote.

I was born via C-section,  Is that not placing the power of doctors and the domination of technology over my origin and destiny?

When I was born, I was literally shaped like a pretzel.  My hands were touching my own forearms, and my legs were entwined with themselves.  Are not the 43 or so surgeries I've had to give me what function and mobility I have, in addition to all of the adaptive technology I need to use to have some semblance of a life, relying on the power of doctors and domination of technology over my origin and destiny?

IMO, there's a danger in fetishizing the 'normal' human body, especially when it's done at the expense of technology that helps people who weren't so lucky, whether they're infertile or have a disability.  The reasoning you gave may be limited to IVF, but that in itself is a form of cherry picking.  If the church has no problem with my existence, it really shouldn't have an issue with IVF.  That it does only highlights how inconsistent they are when it comes to trying to regulate what people do with their own bodies.

I sincerely hope you think about this beyond "Well, the church and/or bible tells me this, so it must be so."

There is nothing wrong with being born via C-section.

(August 5, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Javaman Wrote: 1. "Just because" doesn't really answer my question.

2. If you don't know and, presumably, your church doesn't know, then why should anyone pay any attention to what they have to say? What are these factors that need to be considered?

3. Okay, so my sin is "less reprehensible". Maybe.

Still comes across as a load of presuppositionalist BS. It's still not clear whether I'll suffer as much in hell as a rapist because I masturbated into a test tube. Not sure why it's so hard for your church to figure out which is a worse act. I'm pretty sure anyone with a shred of common sense would have no difficulty determining which act is the greater crime.

1. Not sure what you mean. I was answering your question of "what does the Church teach", and answered it to the point. Not sure where the "just because" came from.

2. No one knows who went to hell, or who is going to hell. That doesn't mean we can't believe certain things are immoral. Judge the sin, not the sinner and all that.

3. I didn't copy and paste the paragraph that came right before that. They were saying it's less reprehensible when doing IVF involving only the married couple versus just using a stranger's egg/sperm and using a surrogate. It wasn't comparing it to rape, because rape is on a whole other level.

I (and others) have specifically asked why it's deemed immoral. Your response has been to claim "because the Church teaches it".

It appears you'd rather be evasive than provide straightforward answers to the various questions I've posed. So be it.

(August 5, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 7:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I really hate that quote.

I was born via C-section,  Is that not placing the power of doctors and the domination of technology over my origin and destiny?

When I was born, I was literally shaped like a pretzel.  My hands were touching my own forearms, and my legs were entwined with themselves.  Are not the 43 or so surgeries I've had to give me what function and mobility I have, in addition to all of the adaptive technology I need to use to have some semblance of a life, relying on the power of doctors and domination of technology over my origin and destiny?

IMO, there's a danger in fetishizing the 'normal' human body, especially when it's done at the expense of technology that helps people who weren't so lucky, whether they're infertile or have a disability.  The reasoning you gave may be limited to IVF, but that in itself is a form of cherry picking.  If the church has no problem with my existence, it really shouldn't have an issue with IVF.  That it does only highlights how inconsistent they are when it comes to trying to regulate what people do with their own bodies.

I sincerely hope you think about this beyond "Well, the church and/or bible tells me this, so it must be so."

There is nothing wrong with being born via C-section.

Could you clarify the difference between medical intervention in either case?

(August 5, 2015 at 8:17 pm)massey904 Wrote: Atheists do favor abortion so I could understand why they don't like kids

First of all, I'm sure more atheists are in favor of allowing abortions than Christians. That's not the same as celebrating them. And there are pro choice Christians.

But, and I think it's the big thing that you are missing is that those of us who are pro choice generally don't think that fetuses are children. Neither does the Bible. It's one of the few cases where I agree with the Bible. Fetuses aren't children.

I like children. Can't say I really like babies, though I loved mine. But I don't like all adults generally either. I do find injuring or neglecting babies or children reprehensible. I find injuring able adults reprehensible and injuring or neglecting disabled adults reprehensible. Ending fetuses not so much. Why? Because they are not people yet.