atheism and children

[Clueless Morgan]

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?

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.

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?