(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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
