atheism and children

[Clueless Morgan]

So that brings it back to just being about the act. Also, it brings it back to me not knowing the difference. Haha

Which is my whole point in Post #391 which still hasn't been addressed, so I guess I'll just quote myself here:

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?
...
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?

Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life

No, conception (a sperm fertilizing an egg and being implanted in the uterus) is the thing that brings forth new life.  Before the advent of modern medicine, sex was merely the method by which conception could occur.

Which brings us back to Alex K's question about vaccines, or more broadly, medical intervention full stop.  Is it because you don't classify dying as "sacred" that you draw the line that you do between processes that create and interventions that prevent death?

If you believe in God and heaven, dying should be one of the most sacred things anyone could possibly do because it would be the process by which a living human being (and whatever soul-substance you believe in) would be whisked away to its afterlife and, presumably, to God himself (especially if you're the type of theist who believes that when you are dying it's really God calling you from beyond to join him), so by medically intervening in the natural process of death (through vaccination to prevent fatal diseases, prolonging life by performing resuscitation, preventing infections, etc.) you would be intervening on a person's journey to God.

So what's the deal?

Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life, and is thus a holy act. This doesn't mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex or that every time a couple has sex they should be trying to have a baby. But it does mean that sex is holy and should stay in the context that is true to its nature.

So you're saying that it's because sex is "the" act that creates new life (which is already an incorrect statement since IVF also creates new life and, under this definition of what makes an act holy, would count as such) and then you're saying that even though it's "the" holy act that creates new life, you don't actually have to create new life in order for that act to be holy... but the possibility of creating new life is necessary??

Unpack this statement for me, 'cause I don't get it.