(August 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Alex K Wrote: It is a genuine question, because I don't see how vaccinations are any more or less unnatural than IVF

Like I have already explained a number of times. It is not the "unnaturalness", in and of itself, that makes IVF immoral in our eyes.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:36 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

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

I'll PM you some food.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

Why isn't an instance of creating life without harming anyone not sacred if life is sacred?

And why is heterosexual married sex sacred, and all the rest immoral?

(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've once seen an interview with art experts about the work of postmodern sculptor J. Beuys. One of them broke out a potato mid interview and  said: it would be unreasonable to say that this is a political potato. But it would be equally unreasonable to say that it is an apolitical potato"

I don't know what the fuck he meant, but it seems relevant to the conversation.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.

Why isn't an instance of creating life without harming anyone not sacred if life is sacred?

And why is heterosexual married sex sacred, and all the rest immoral?

Because we believe the means of doing it was not.

Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the means of doing it was not.

Forget I asked.

Quote:Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

So I guess everybody else will just have to go fuck themselves. Literally.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:52 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It probably just makes them neutral. Like the sandwich I'm eating right now lol. A neutral act.

I've once seen an interview with art experts about the work of postmodern sculptor J. Beuys. One of them broke out a potato mid interview and  said: it would be unreasonable to say that this is a political potato. But it would be equally unreasonable to say that it is an apolitical potato"

I don't know what the fuck he meant, but it seems relevant to the conversation.

Quote of the month right here.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

Wait, so a "union" is not "consummated" until the wife is pregnant?

Also, I'd like you to address my previous comments in post #391
http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?ti...to=1019250

And Alex K's question about vaccinations because:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Alex K Wrote: It is a genuine question, because I don't see how vaccinations are any more or less unnatural than IVF

I have the same issue with it.

(August 10, 2015 at 10:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 6:11 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

I was with you in understand your reasons *why* until this last sentence/paragraph.

This use of an ambiguous word, 'sacred' doesn't sit well with me, and also it seems as though you accuse me (and by extension others) of not finding an inherent 'worth' in human life/life per se should we not ascribe to this undefined notion of sacredness. This is false and not a description which could be aimed at me with any reasonable certainty of it being true.

If we're talking 'sacred' in a spiritual/religious way, then certainly I would agree that there is nothing sacred about us or indeed anything in the Universe. However, if we are talking in terms of *worth*, then you'll find that I agree very much about the worth of life, not just human life but all life.

Indeed, talking in terms of worth, this actually makes your position the more ambiguous and dismissive. Because a couple may not be able to create a child through traditional sexual intercourse, the above description seems to suggest that any other form of conception thus has less validity/worth. When I ask as to your actual reasons *why* you disagree, and when I state that you have still not given a good reasons as to *why*, it is here I am focusing my critique. 'Because it's sacred' reads 'Because cop-out'. Again, a couple who has IVF treatment still make love, they still have sperm and egg, but for one reason or another there is no creation of a zygote. Joining them in dish and then inserting them into the womb is effectively the exact same thing. There is still love between the couple (one would presume as given), they still have intercourse, there is still *love* for the entire process and the result.

Your rejection of this for couples who receive IVF is, for lack of a better word or description, perplexing and unfounded. You have absolutely no authority to suggest that conception through IVF is any less valid in terms of worth (let alone love) when compared to a couple who are lucky enough to be able to conceive through conventional means. Your insinuation that a couple that have to resort to IVF to conceive has less *worth* or *love* is not welcome, and certainly should be met with the fiercest criticism.

Your above post is effectively an apology of bigotry and a way of squaring the circle in order for the RCC to save face when confronted with ambiguity.

I wasn't trying to say you might not think life has any worth. I was trying to say exactly as it says, that you might not think life is sacred. Sacredness is very important here, otherwise, you are right, there should be no reason why IVF is immoral even if you believe human life has worth.  

You may think it's a cop out, to you, but you need to understand that to us, sacredness is a HUGE deal. If you can't accept that, then it's impossible for you do understand where we are coming from, which is exactly what I said in that last sentence.

So therefore we're back to an abitary, undefined, opaque concept of 'sacred' which ultimately defines why one act of creating a zygote is 'immoral' and another act which for all intents and purposes is identical is not.

Still screams of a cop out to me. Nonsensical arbitrary labeling of something as immoral for no other reason than to save face. By the way, where is the actual condemnation of IVF in the bible? Or even artificial insemination?

You know what it reads like? It's as though research on IVF was published and the technique became widespread to assist couples who were having difficulty in conceiving, then some men in the Vatican sat around a table drinking some wine and it was suddenly brought up in conversation. "Oh, IVF? Erm, what is it, artificial insemination? Don't like the sound of that, better condemn it just in case!"

If the RCC suddenly came out and said it was ok (haven't read anything that suggests they haven't thus far) would you go along or stick to your guns?

I too would also like clarification on the question of vaccinations.

(August 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

Wait, so a "union" is not "consummated" until the wife is pregnant?

Also, I'd like you to address my previous comments in post #391
http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?ti...to=1019250

And Alex K's question about vaccinations because:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Alex K Wrote: It is a genuine question, because I don't see how vaccinations are any more or less unnatural than IVF

I have the same issue with it.

Not sure how you got that, but no.

I'll take a look at your comment but can't promise I'll have the time to respond right now if it's too long.

I have addressed the unnatural issue a number of times on this thread a already.