(August 10, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:(August 10, 2015 at 10:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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?
Like I said, we think it's immoral to take something holy outside the purity of its context. And to us, that's what IVF does.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
