atheism and children

[Javaman]

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.

But what if having kids enhances your chances of being elected?

That often seems to be the case in the USA.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't think an anonymous stranger on the internet has any place to tell me what I do and don't honestly believe. 

I do like discussions.
I like friendly discussions with people who respect each other and know how to exchange different opinions without getting upset at the person who thinks differently.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

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.

I just think saying "you can kill someone who might kill you" sounds very different from saying you have the right to exert only as much force as is necessary to stop someone who is trying to kill you. The former is not how I would describe my views on this, as it sounds much more liberal and merciless than the latter.

What I believe is that if someone is coming after you with a knife, for example, and you can stop them by knocking them out, or running away and calling the cops, you should do that. But if the situation is such that the only way you can stop them from killing you is by shooting them, if your shot kills them, I don't think that's immoral on your part. Though it should be the absolute last resort. But yes, the idea is to always try to preserve life.

I don't think this is the same scenario as an embryo implanting on the Fallopian tube. The baby is not an instigator who is trying to kill you, while the person viciously attacking you is, regardless of whether they would be deemed innocent by reason of insanity or not. They may be innocent for reason of insanity as far as the law and jail time is concerned, but they are still not innocent of trying to kill you. The same cannot be said about an unborn baby, fetus, embryo, or whatever you want to call him/her.

Since I think one innocent human life is worth the same as any other innocent human life, I can't support killing one to save the other. If there is a problem involving the pregnancy, a doctor can try to do whatever they can to treat whatever the problem is. If the treatment ends in the unintended death of the mother's child (such as removal of a damaged tube), that's not immoral. But if the baby is specifically targeted to be killed, I do find that immoral. One is an unintended consequence/side effect, the other is a direct intent to kill another person.

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I have said several times now. I don't expect my views on IVF to make sense to any of you. I've explained it as best as I can multiple times, and it's not a matter of y'all not understanding my words, but rather a matter of you just not thinking in the same way. That just goes to show how fundamentally different are the ways in which we think. A lot of the things you guys say make 0 sense to me too. But that's just how the world is, and I'm fine with leaving it at that. People can have different opinions, and me, for my part, I will not do IVF because I don't believe it is moral, and would instead adopt if I could not conceive. But if you disagree, that's fine. You can do IVF if you want. There is no reason for anyone to be angry or frustrated at anyone here for having a different opinion on this. :-)

[Javaman]

Like I have said several times now. I don't expect my views on IVF to make sense to any of you. I've explained it as best as I can multiple times, and it's not a matter of y'all not understanding my words, but rather a matter of you just not thinking in the same way. That just goes to show how fundamentally different are the ways in which we think. A lot of the things you guys say make 0 sense to me either. But that's just how the world is, and I'm fine with leaving it at that. People can have different opinions, and me, for my part, I will not do IVF because I don't believe it is moral. But if you disagree, that's fine. You can do IVF if you want. There is no reason for anyone to be angry or frustrated at anyone here for having a different opinion on this. :-)

Fair enough, but do you think the Catholic Church should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I have said several times now. I don't expect my views on IVF to make sense to any of you. I've explained it as best as I can multiple times, and it's not a matter of y'all not understanding my words, but rather a matter of you just not thinking in the same way. That just goes to show how fundamentally different are the ways in which we think. A lot of the things you guys say make 0 sense to me either. But that's just how the world is, and I'm fine with leaving it at that. People can have different opinions, and me, for my part, I will not do IVF because I don't believe it is moral. But if you disagree, that's fine. You can do IVF if you want. There is no reason for anyone to be angry or frustrated at anyone here for having a different opinion on this. :-)

Fair enough, but do you think the Catholic Church should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

No, I don't think IVF should be illegal. I'm sure there probably are Catholics out there who do, but I'm sure they would be in the minority, as I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who thinks it should be illegal.

[Javaman]

Fair enough, but do you think the Catholic Church should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

No, I don't think IVF should be illegal. I'm sure there probably are Catholics out there who do, but I'm sure they would be in the minority, as I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who thinks it should be illegal.

Okay, well, you sorta dodged my question.

Based on your answer, I'm going to say you think it's wrong for the RCC to use it's influence to make IVF illegal. Is that a fair interpretation of your response?

If not, please answer my question more directly: Do you think the RCC should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

Edit: I'm also kinda puzzled that you keep giving me kudos.

[Longhorn]

I'm sorry, but I don't think an anonymous stranger on the internet has any place to tell me what I do and don't honestly believe.   

Did I do that? I said I don't think you do. My impression only.

[T.J.]

I voted A. I don't have children, but would like to some day. Though now I'd look at adoption whenever I'm ready. I get to be a dad, a kid get to have a home, and the hypothetical woman in this situation doesn't have to go through nine months of unpleasantness and delivery. EVERYBODY WINS!

[Catholic_Lady]

No, I don't think IVF should be illegal. I'm sure there probably are Catholics out there who do, but I'm sure they would be in the minority, as I have never met anyone or heard of anyone who thinks it should be illegal.

Okay, well, you sorta dodged my question.

Based on your answer, I'm going to say you think it's wrong for the RCC to use it's influence to make IVF illegal. Is that a fair interpretation of your response?

If not, please answer my question more directly: Do you think the RCC should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

Edit: I'm also kinda puzzled that you keep giving me kudos.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.