(August 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Catholic_Lad Wrote: One "million" is the exact wording I used the first time around.

Have a good day.

The important thing is, you've found a way to dance around all the meaningful criticisms of your position.

Well done.

Good day indeed.

(August 6, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Javaman Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Catholic_Lad Wrote: One "million" is the exact wording I used the first time around.

Have a good day.

The important thing is, you've found a way to dance around all the meaningful criticisms of your position.

Well done.

Good day indeed.

My point is it's impossible to have this conversation with you because you can't keep straight what I said, you accuse me of saying different things than what I actually said, and accuse me of not answering or addressing things that I already have. Not to mention, you're being very emotional and hostile. My "1 million" comment above was kind of an "I rest my case."

(August 6, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Javaman Wrote: The important thing is, you've found a way to dance around all the meaningful criticisms of your position.

Well done.

Good day indeed.

My point is it's impossible to have this conversation with you because you can't keep straight what I said, you accuse me of saying different things than what I actually said, and accuse me of not answering or addressing things that I already have. Not to mention, you're being very emotional and hostile. My "1 million" comment above was kind of an "I rest my case."

No, not really: I'm completely amenable to a reasonable conversation. When you duck answering my questions, I naturally grow skeptical, not hostile, about anything you have to say.

I only get hostile when you tell me I acted immorally and illicitly when doing what was necessary to start my family.

Do you yet acknowledge your error on the whole analogy-definition business?

And according to your beliefs, will rapists suffer a worse punishment than IVF'ers given that rape is a million times more immoral than IVF?

I really don't get why your refuse to answer that question. No hostility, just puzzlement.

You shouldn't have implied that IVF children are a product of a immoral and illicit procedure just because your ancient book of rules says so.
These children mean the world to some people.This man is obviously irked because of that.To be fair,anyone would be.

(August 6, 2015 at 9:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 9:33 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I still don't understand what the difference is between placing a fertilized egg in the womb of parents who are incapable (through plumbing or motility, etc) of doing it with sex and taking that baby out of the womb at the end of the cycle. Is it more moral if the parents have sex before or after implantation?

I guess it's the word immoral that I am hanging up on. This implies that you think that two people who want a child of their own have done something wrong by creating a child using medical intervention, the same medical intervention that helps cure cancer, saves a baby's life that is born with some defect, or comes up with a polio vaccine. Why is this specific medical intervention immoral, but other fertility methods aren't? IVF doesn't do anything other than put the egg and the sperm together and implant some embryos where they grow inside the mother. I am just confused as to where the line is drawn, and how a person as intelligent as you obviously are wrestles with this internally. When do you decide that certain medical interventions are God's plan that we discover and utilize (modern medicine), and others are against God's plan (IVF)?

It's not necessarily placing the fertilized egg inside that's the problem for us. It's the actual joining of the sperm and the egg. Like I said, because we believe the creation of human life (the actual joining of sperm and egg) is a very sacred thing, we believe it should be kept in the purity of its natural form. Meaning egg/sperm should be put together through the act of self giving love.

I understand that you believe this. I am trying to understand why. I am trying to understand the arbitrary nature of this distinction. Where does the 'purity of it's natural form' line get drawn? Is it only with the fertilization of an egg? How is unnaturally cutting a baby out of the mother's womb (didn't God punish all women forever with painful childbirth, isn't this circumventing that?) any different from unnaturally putting a baby in there. Where in the Bible does it say that fertilization is immoral? Why is circumventing God's plan (vaccines/drugs/surgery/chemo etc) okay in other instances, but this one is somehow immoral?

(August 6, 2015 at 9:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Not because medical intervention is immoral across the board, but because this particular thing is a very sacred thing that we believe should be handled with a certain level of purity and respect to its natural form. For example, my cousin had some sort of issue where she was having a very hard time conceiving. So she had a surgery to fix this problem and make her more able to conceive. This is not immoral. The line is drawn when sperm and egg are put together through any other means besides sex.

Where does this come from? Some dude in the Vatican made this proclamation? Again, why this arbitrary distinction between medical procedures that alter "God's Design?" Medical intervention to help a woman conceive is okay in every instance other than when a fertilized egg is placed in her uterus so that she can conceive? This is just so arbitrary it is silly.

(August 6, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 9:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's not necessarily placing the fertilized egg inside that's the problem for us. It's the actual joining of the sperm and the egg. Like I said, because we believe the creation of human life (the actual joining of sperm and egg) is a very sacred thing, we believe it should be kept in the purity of its natural form. Meaning egg/sperm should be put together through the act of self giving love.

I understand that you believe this. I am trying to understand why. I am trying to understand the arbitrary nature of this distinction. Where does the 'purity of it's natural form' line get drawn? 

...With as far as the actual joining of the sperm and the egg, at which point a new life is created. This creation of life is what we believe to be a sacred thing.

Is it only with the fertilization of an egg?

Yes. It is only with the joining of the egg and the sperm.

How is unnaturally cutting a baby out of the mother's womb (didn't God punish all women forever with painful childbirth, isn't this circumventing that?) any different from unnaturally putting a baby in there. Where in the Bible does it say that fertilization is immoral? Why is circumventing God's plan (vaccines/drugs/surgery/chemo etc) okay in other instances, but this one is somehow immoral?

I don't believe that God "punishes women with the pain of childbirth," neither is this Church teaching. So no, it is not against our beliefs to make childbirth painless through an epidural, or a C section. Again, it is not "putting a baby in there" that is the immoral part. It is the joining of the sperm with the egg. Also, we don't believe IVF is immoral because it "circumvents God's plan", per se. That's why surgery, vaccine, drugs, medical care, etc, are not against our beliefs. We think IVF is immoral because we believe that the creation of new human life is a sacred thing, and should thus stay within the sacred context of lovemaking.

(August 6, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Where does this come from? Some dude in the Vatican made this proclamation?

We believe that infallible Church teaching comes from God. Of course, I'm sure you think it just came from "some dude" lol, but that is not what we believe.

Again, why this arbitrary distinction between medical procedures that alter "God's Design?"

Because the creation of new life is a sacred thing, as I explained.

Medical intervention to help a woman conceive is okay in every instance other than when a fertilized egg is placed in her uterus so that she can conceive?

It's the fertilization of the egg, specifically, that is the issue. We do not believe that the creation of new human life should take place in a petri dish by a doctor. Because we believe that it is such a sacred thing, we believe it should be created through the lovemaking of husband and wife.

This is just so arbitrary it is silly.

I disagree, but that's why you are atheist and I am Catholic, so it only makes sense lol.

(August 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: No, as it happens, I can't.

The end result is exactly the same whether it's through actual intercourse or insertion of the fertilised eggs into the womb.

The difference is entirely arbitrary and moral objections to IVF appear to be an objection for objection's sake of to save face in the light of ambiguity of dogma and/or doctrine When confronted with technological advance.

Hell just have sex before/after the procedure and pretend. The procedure at least has a guaranteed % chance of starting the process (in that the sperm has met the egg) 'Normal' intercourse is hit and miss *at best*.

It's not the end result that we think is immoral, it's the act itself.

If you need $10 you can either attain it by stealing, or by shoveling snow off your neighbor's driveway. The end result is the same... you got $10.

Likewise, it's not having a kid that we think is immoral (obviously lol), it's the means by which you went about it.

That is the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read regarding an objection to IVF.

If you disagree with the means, fair enough. However, to date, you have failed consistently to provide a valid or even comprehensible reason to this general membership as to why you hold this objection. "Because reasons" is all I can deduce at the moment.

I can only conclude back to my original conclusions regarding the knee-jerk to 'It's sinful (or whatever)' when confronted with an ambiguity following on from technological advance.

(August 7, 2015 at 3:48 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: "Because reasons" is all I can deduce at the moment.

The RCC be like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That is just great. Stealing that shiz.