atheism and children

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.