(August 10, 2015 at 10:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To answer your question, it says nothing about the human life. Only about the act itself. In this case, I suppose it would be rape. Yes, rape is immoral, but any innocent human life that is conceived through rape is just as sacred and precious as any other life. How a person was conceived has no bearing on that person whatsoever.

If a thing like human life is sacred despite the morality of the method of conception, then what purpose does distinguishing between the morality of the methods of conception have?  Why make the distinction?  Why does it matter whether a child is conceived through a loving sex act, or a violent one, or through medical intervention if the end result is still a "sacred" child?

(August 10, 2015 at 10:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 10:18 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: What does the manner of ones' conception have to do with anything?  Do you think that being an IVF baby will have some lasting physical, emotional or social consequences on that person?  If so, why?  And what's the data you are using the support this notion?  If not, then what the hell does the "sacredness" of the conception method matter to anything?

What do you mean by "have to do with anything?" I just personally don't think it's a moral way of conceiving. That's all.

And to answer your question about the negative consequences for the child themselves, the answer is No.

If there is no negative impact from the method of conception on the child, then why should there be a distinction made about the "sacredness" of how that child was conceived?  This is what I was saying before: Saying that the act of conception through love-motivated sex is sacred strongly implies that that sacredness is somehow passed along to the child and imbues them with sanctity.  If it doesn't, then why make the distinction about the sanctity of the conception?

Whether it occurs in a Fallopian tube or a petri dish, all conception boils down to a sperm fertilizing an ovum, followed by implantation in the uterus.  Conception itself is amoral.

The only moral distinction I can even fathom making is whether or not the act that brought about the conception was consensual.  Rape is not a consensual act, therefore it is immoral.  IVF is a consensual act on the part of the two parents making the sperm and ovum donations, or on the part of the woman who obtained sperm through a sperm bank where the man consented to this sort of use for his donation.

If there were some situation in which the ova-donation or the sperm-donation was not consensual or not all parties were informed of the impending fertilization and implantation of the ovum, than that IVF procedure would be immoral, but not because IVF itself is immoral, but because one or more parties involved in the procedure were being actively deceived (the deceived donator, and, presumably, the deceived doctor).

There is nothing inherently immoral about IVF.

I, therefore, have little choice but to conclude that your entire position is a giant exploitation of the naturalistic fallacy.

Quote:It only matters because we believe sacred things need to be treated with reverence and kept in a particular context, and to not do so is immoral in our opinion.

What if IVF were treated "reverentially?"

What inherent value does the "particular context" of the conception have if it has no effect on the child conceived?

(August 10, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Do vaccinations desecrate a child?

What do you think, Alex? What do you honestly think Church teaching is on this?

(I'm asking because I'm not entirely sure your question is a genuine question. sorry if I am wrong)

I keep forgetting that you do not use the bible as a source directly, but the laws of your church which claims to know God's will on issues that are not mentioned in the bible. I thought your opposition to IVF is that it is not explicitely mentioned in the bible as kosher.

(August 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: It's wrong to create life if it's not a dick in a vagina is exactly as absurd as it's wrong to take life saving pills if they're not red.

If human life is sacred, how can making it not be so?

...And that is exactly the gap between me and the rest of you, and why it is difficult for you to understand my views.

You think "a penis in a vagina" is just some little thing that you can compare to the color of a pill. We think it's an incredibly sacred, holy, spiritual thing.

No, I don't think that, but thanks for telling me that I do. I think picking under what circumstances it is moral to impregnate a consenting woman to be equal to picking the color of a pill.

Why? Is rape sacred too?

You know, this is precisely the attitude towards sex that I detest. Making it something like blasphemy if it isn't in the right circumstances, and the right circumstances are two married people of opposite sexes. Because reasons.

(August 10, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Alex K Wrote: Do vaccinations desecrate a child?

What do you think, Alex? What do you honestly think Church teaching is on this?

(I'm asking because I'm not entirely sure your question is a genuine question. sorry if I am wrong)

Whether it's a genuine question on Alex's part or not, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to it.

It is a genuine question, because I don't see how vaccinations are any more or less unnatural than IVF

(August 10, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...And that is exactly the gap between me and the rest of you, and why it is difficult for you to understand my views.

You think "a penis in a vagina" is just some little thing that you can compare to the color of a pill. We think it's an incredibly sacred, holy, spiritual thing.

No, I don't think that, but thanks for telling me that I do. I think picking under what circumstances it is moral to impregnate a consenting woman to be equal to picking the color of a pill.

Why? Is rape sacred too?

You know, this is precisely the attitude towards sex that I detest. Making it something like blasphemy if it isn't in the right circumstances, and the right circumstances are two married people of opposite sexes. Because reasons.

Obi-Wan - Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes

(August 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Exian Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well, we believe the Church is led by God on issues of faith and morals. So if there is an official teaching about a belief, such as human life is sacred, the marital act is sacred, then we believe that this teaching came from God.

The bible was written way before IVF existed, and as Catholics we believe the Church is the main pillar of truth, not the bible. (not that the bible is false, just that it doesn't hold all the answers by itself, especially on issues that come up as times change, like you said). We believe the ultimate thing that Jesus left us was the Church, with Peter as the first pope. Not the bible. Otherwise, yes, the bible would explicitly hold allll the answers to everything that is to come in the future.  

Also, it makes sense to me for human life to be sacred, and for the venue in which human life is created to also be sacred. I don't feel like I'm just blindly following.

Well, color me knowledged. I seriously didn't know the Church was more important (lack of a better word) than the bible to Catholics. On one hand, that's pretty awesome, since your beliefs won't go obsolete as time moves away from things mentioned in the bible, but on the other hand, you guys need to get with the times haha Well, "getting with the times" is maybe second in importance to having a faster system for getting with the times. That administration lag will always ensure that Catholicism is just behind the rest of the secular world. That the church has final say is better than goin by the book though. Catholic administration lag will be worlds ahead of, say, Islam on many issues.

I don't think you're blindly following. Clearly you're not. Anyone with the nuts to come to an atheist forum and duke it out can't be charged for blindly following.

I too believe that human life is important for, you know, human life, but I don't see putting arbitrary regulations on how we go about that with two consenting adults. Now, really that's only insulting to non-Catholics, but to Catholics that are having troubles with getting pregnant, this could ruin worlds. But that isn't weighed in, apparently.

I wonder what's more important- to do something sacred, or to not do something unsacred? I'm sure you do a million things a day that you don't consider sacred, but does that make those things un-sacred or unholy?

It probably just makes them neutral. Like the sandwich I'm eating right now lol. A neutral act.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Exian Wrote: Well, color me knowledged. I seriously didn't know the Church was more important (lack of a better word) than the bible to Catholics. On one hand, that's pretty awesome, since your beliefs won't go obsolete as time moves away from things mentioned in the bible, but on the other hand, you guys need to get with the times haha Well, "getting with the times" is maybe second in importance to having a faster system for getting with the times. That administration lag will always ensure that Catholicism is just behind the rest of the secular world. That the church has final say is better than goin by the book though. Catholic administration lag will be worlds ahead of, say, Islam on many issues.

I don't think you're blindly following. Clearly you're not. Anyone with the nuts to come to an atheist forum and duke it out can't be charged for blindly following.

I too believe that human life is important for, you know, human life, but I don't see putting arbitrary regulations on how we go about that with two consenting adults. Now, really that's only insulting to non-Catholics, but to Catholics that are having troubles with getting pregnant, this could ruin worlds. But that isn't weighed in, apparently.

I wonder what's more important- to do something sacred, or to not do something unsacred? I'm sure you do a million things a day that you don't consider sacred, but does that make those things un-sacred or unholy?

It probably just makes them neutral. Like the sandwich I'm eating right now lol. A neutral act.

I had to work through lunch and I'm starving.  Reading this made it worse.  Whatcha making for me?  

(August 10, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...And that is exactly the gap between me and the rest of you, and why it is difficult for you to understand my views.

You think "a penis in a vagina" is just some little thing that you can compare to the color of a pill. We think it's an incredibly sacred, holy, spiritual thing.

No, I don't think that, but thanks for telling me that I do. I think picking under what circumstances it is moral to impregnate a consenting woman to be equal to picking the color of a pill.

Why? Is rape sacred too?

You know, this is precisely the attitude towards sex that I detest. Making it something like blasphemy if it isn't in the right circumstances, and the right circumstances are two married people of opposite sexes. Because reasons.

My apologies. I misunderstood and thought you did when you made the comment about penis in vagina and color of pill.

And no, rape is not sacred. Rape defiles a sacred act. On top of being a horrible thing to do to another person (which alone would be enough to make it immoral), we believe rape is immoral also because it takes something so sacred and defiles it.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What do you think, Alex? What do you honestly think Church teaching is on this?

(I'm asking because I'm not entirely sure your question is a genuine question. sorry if I am wrong)

Whether it's a genuine question on Alex's part or not, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to it.

The answer is no.