Funny that immoral doesn't equal unholy, and holy doesn't equal moral...

(August 14, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I have to say that I'm impressed with your level of cognitive dissonance.

You say that's it's okay ("tragic but not immoral" to use your words) to kill an "innocent" person who might kill you, but it's NOT okay to directly abort an ectopic pregnancy which will have the exact say effect as an "innocent" killing someone (an embryo killing its mother).  I find it fascinating that that you say one must end an ectopic pregnancy by removing a section of the Fallopian tube in order to avoid a direct abortion of the embryo but still save the mother's life (Post #477), when, in some cases, there is no need for such a drastic, invasive procedure; if caught early enough the pregnancy can be ended through medical intervention, without the need for a surgical one.

Furthermore, I'm profoundly dumbstruck by the fact that you think it's "tragic but not immoral" to kill an "innocent" who might kill another person, but that it's definitely immoral to combine a sperm and an ovum in a petri dish.

I just got as far as the bolded part. Nope! That's not what I said.

Sorry, but to move further in the discussion it's important that we actually listen to what the other says. Please reread what I wrote in my response post to you.

EDIT TO ADD:

You know, on further thought (and upon reading the rest of your post), perhaps I shouldn't respond. I'm not on here responding y'alls questions because I'm trying to convert you or preach at you. I'm responding to y'alls questions for no other reason than out of politeness and consideration for the person asking. With all respect, but it's really not motivating me at all when people take condescending and borderline hostile tone when I'm taking time out of my day to answer things for you. I'm on vacation right now visiting family that I only see 2-3 times a year.

(August 14, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Immoral to combine a sperm and an ovum in a petri dish?  

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so someone's going to have to fill me in on how my children are abominations.

They are not.

And if you read what I actually wrote in the thread you will see that I repeatedly state that they are not.

(August 14, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They are not.

And if you read what I actually wrote in the thread you will see that I repeatedly state that they are not.

Fair enough.

I missed what you had said due to falling behind on this thread and not wanting to sift through 51 pages to catch up. Then I was just being sarcastic after reading what CM had said. In fact, I really ought to change my signature to say someting like, "Try reading my post in a sarcastic tone to see if it makes more sense." I can't help it. I'm sarcastic to the bone.

(August 14, 2015 at 8:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They are not.

And if you read what I actually wrote in the thread you will see that I repeatedly state that they are not.

Fair enough.  

I missed what you had said due to falling behind on this thread and not wanting to sift through 51 pages to catch up.  Then I was just being sarcastic after reading what CM had said.  In fact, I really ought to change my signature to say someting like, "Try reading my post in a sarcastic tone to see if it makes more sense."  I can't help it.  I'm sarcastic to the bone.

Hey, no probs!

(August 14, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I just got as far as the bolded part. Nope! That's not what I said.

Sorry, but to move further in the discussion it's important that we actually listen to what the other says. Please reread what I wrote in my response post to you.

Quote:Insane/mentally ill or not, if an instigator is coming after you, trying to kill you (or someone else), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. If that amount of force results in their death, it is tragic but not immoral IMHO.

^^-- This is exactly what you said. That it is an acceptable action to kill someone who might kill you (I say might because if they actually kill you then the point is moot) even if they are an innocent. That you can use as much force as necessary to defend your own life from this innocent even if it results in their death. You say that this is a tragic but not immoral action.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.

Everyone has the right to defend their own life against a threat that might kill them.

The thing is, I extend this to pregnant women too. A woman has the right to defend her life against a pregnancy that will kill her if it continues even if it means DIRECTLY aborting the embryo. I don't understand the arbitrary line you are drawing when you say that you can abort if you don't DIRECTLY kill the embryo, that you have to go through the rigmarole of a possibly unnecessary surgery to end a pregnancy that could be ended by taking some pills.

And I don't understand why you would categorize the death of an innocent as "tragic but not immoral" (which, again, I agree with you about) but then say conception divorced from sex and taking place in a petri dish by doctors IS immoral.

I don't understand it.

Quote:EDIT TO ADD:

You know, on further thought (and upon reading the rest of your post), perhaps I shouldn't respond. I'm not on here responding y'alls questions because I'm trying to convert you or preach at you. I'm responding to y'alls questions for no other reason than out of politeness and consideration for the person asking. With all respect, but it's really not motivating me at all when people take condescending and borderline hostile tone when I'm taking time out of my day to answer things for you. I'm on vacation right now visiting family that I only see 2-3 times a year.

I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm trying to understand because the way you delineate between what is sacred or not and what is moral or not makes no sense to me.

You know, when you're trying to square a circle and justify something that I don't even think you honestly believe in (being the empathetic person you are), it's only inevitable that someone will point it out. I also think hostile is an exaggeration, but like I've said, if you don't like discussion, take a break from it.

The problem is the two different meanings of immoral.

Immoral: has negative/harmful consequences

Immoral: it's bad because God says so

These are not the same thing. It's easy for theists to defend actions that happen to fall into both categories, but once it starts being only the second one, the explanation is going to sound absurd to anyone outside the religion. If the "harm" is just the theists themselves being upset because they have upset God, then that harm does not translate to people outside of the religion. So to continue to call it immoral for them in any meaningful way is invalid. You could only say it would be immoral if they were Catholic. There is no harm for atheists, literally all that remains is God's feelings. And really, an omnipotent God (should he exist) shouldn't be having human emotions, and should be able to deal with it.

(August 14, 2015 at 8:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They are not.

And if you read what I actually wrote in the thread you will see that I repeatedly state that they are not.

Fair enough.  

I missed what you had said due to falling behind on this thread and not wanting to sift through 51 pages to catch up.  Then I was just being sarcastic after reading what CM had said.  In fact, I really ought to change my signature to say someting like, "Try reading my post in a sarcastic tone to see if it makes more sense."  I can't help it.  I'm sarcastic to the bone.

IVF, according to CL, is both immoral and illicit. She has repeatedly assured us that any product of this immoral and illicit act is not inferior in any way, shape, or form.

She has likened IVF to a criminal act: something to do with shoveling snow. However, as far as I can decipher, she agrees with the RCC's doctrine that, whilst everything involved with IVF is sacred, any fertilization of an ovum that occurs outside of sexual intercourse is not.

In other words, your children (and mine) are the sacred products of a sacrilegious procedure.

It doesn't make sense to a lot of us.

I vote B.

As someone who wants to enter politics and have a dynamic lifestyle, kids just won't cut it. I'm not going to put children through the hells of publicity and lack of stability based on personal whims.