atheism and children

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, it's either I do that and get accused of blindly following, or I don't do that and get accused of being a cafeteria Christian lol. Now I've had both happen.

Which is it, dammit?!

In seriousness, it's a dilemma for every believer, and that is because every believer cherry-picks doctrine to suit their own morality that they already have internalized. I was not different when I was a believer, and you're no different either, even though your doctrine come from a pope and not a scripture.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you'd left out the phrase "the rest of you", this reply wouldn't bug me.

Plenty of us atheists also think that lovemaking is indeed a precious thing.  That doesn't sanctify the child, though. Is not the child of rape equally worthy?

The analogy of colored pills was only an analogy. It is not indicative of anyone's views about the conceived child, and it's a little unfair of you to insinuate otherwise.

My apologies, PT. That is the impression I got, of which I was clearly wrong.

I do believe all humans are equal in worth, regardless of how they were conceived.

Except for Mississippians.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, it's either I do that and get accused of blindly following, or I don't do that and get accused of being a cafeteria Christian lol. Now I've had both happen.

Which is it, dammit?!

In seriousness, it's a dilemma for every believer, and that is because every believer cherry-picks doctrine to suit their own morality that they already have internalized. I was not different when I was a believer, and you're no different either, even though your doctrine come from a pope and not a scripture.

Haha, well I believe all the doctrines. What I was saying was that sometimes when I tell people on here what I believe without explicitly saying that it is also what the Church teaches, they accuse me of cherry picking because they don't know that what I'm saying is actually Church teaching. They just assume it's stuff I'm making up on my own, since it's different from other stuff they've heard from more conservative Christians. So now when talking about my beliefs, I'm always sure to include that it is what the Church teaches. But then that just makes people accuse me of blindly following the Church lol.

[Catholic_Lady]

My apologies, PT. That is the impression I got, of which I was clearly wrong.

I do believe all humans are equal in worth, regardless of how they were conceived.

Except for Mississippians.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Any Catholic that argues against abortion "except in cases of rape" is blatantly going against very fundamental Church teaching, which states that abortion is always wrong. I agree with the Church that abortion is always wrong and never understood the rape argument myself. The life of an unborn human being is wroth just the same as the life of his or her mother, which is worth the same as the life of every other person.

It's a shame your Church doesn't put such a noble view into practice. What of the life of the mother, in the case of ectopic pregnancy? Is abortion still wrong?

I think churches should stick to theological matters, and leave decisions like this to the person who must live or die on his or her own decision. An organization of men who will never have to face such a shattering decision should probably avoid opining on it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is it, dammit?!

In seriousness, it's a dilemma for every believer, and that is because every believer cherry-picks doctrine to suit their own morality that they already have internalized. I was not different when I was a believer, and you're no different either, even though your doctrine come from a pope and not a scripture.

Haha, well I believe all the doctrines. What I was saying was that sometimes when I tell people on here what I believe without explicitly saying that it is also what the Church teaches, they accuse me of cherry picking because they don't know that what I'm saying is actually Church teaching. They just assume it's stuff I'm making up on my own, since it's different from other stuff they've heard from more conservative Christians. So now when talking about my beliefs, I'm always sure to include that it is what the Church teaches. But then that just makes people accuse me of blindly following the Church lol.

But the fact is that if Church doctrine is not biblically-based, and you've said as much in previous posts, then you are left with a form of cherry-picking: you are reduced to accepting doctrine concocted by strangers you don't know from Adam's housecat telling you what is right or wrong.

Now, if you've scoped it out thoroughly and agree with each point, more power to you, I s'pose. But I'd be surprised to find a woman who agreed with 100% of anything a man said -- I mean, really surprised.

[Catholic_Lady]

Any Catholic that argues against abortion "except in cases of rape" is blatantly going against very fundamental Church teaching, which states that abortion is always wrong. I agree with the Church that abortion is always wrong and never understood the rape argument myself. The life of an unborn human being is wroth just the same as the life of his or her mother, which is worth the same as the life of every other person.

It's a shame your Church doesn't put such a noble view into practice. What of the life of the mother, in the case of ectopic pregnancy? Is abortion still wrong?

I think churches should stick to theological matters, and leave decisions like this to the person who must live or die on his or her own decision. An organization of men who will never have to face such a shattering decision should probably avoid opining on it.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, we believe it is moral to remove the damaged/rupture portion of the fallopian tube. The baby will die as a result of this, but his/her death will be an unintended consequence, and not a direct, intentional attack.

Likewise, if a cancer patient gets pregnant, she can still undergo cancer treatments and chemo. If her child dies, it's tragic, but it will be an unintended consequence, not a direct action taken with the intent of killing the child.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a shame your Church doesn't put such a noble view into practice. What of the life of the mother, in the case of ectopic pregnancy? Is abortion still wrong?

I think churches should stick to theological matters, and leave decisions like this to the person who must live or die on his or her own decision. An organization of men who will never have to face such a shattering decision should probably avoid opining on it.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, we believe it is moral to remove the damaged/rupture portion of the fallopian tube. The baby will die as a result of this, but his/her death will be an unintended consequence, and not a direct, intentional attack.  

Likewise, if a cancer patient gets pregnant, she can still undergo cancer treatments and chemo. If her child dies, it's tragic, but it will be an unintended consequence, not a direct action taken with the intent of killing the child.

And how is that not valuing the mother's life more?

[robvalue]

This is all very confusing for me.

Would it be fair, CL to say that you consider IVF immoral primarily because that is what the church teaches?

The thing that is puzzling me most is about why anyone should care that the church says it is immoral. Obviously as an atheist I don't care anyway, but Christianity teaches that everyone is already sinful but Jesus dies for those sins (in advance). And you can just apologize and be forgiven afterward. So no harm has been done to either parent, or to the child, the "sin" has been forgiven so presumably God has dealt with whatever issues he has and won't hold it against you... Things are fine now?

The whole thing is utterly bizarre to me

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Why? On what grounds? I don't know what the current position of the church is, but why do you believe so?

Well apart from me believing that the Church is a direct link to God on these matters, which is a big part of it, mind you...  

...It really makes no sense to me that something that does not come from God would be deemed sacred by God. I mean, the very definition of sacred, as I understand and accept the word, is that is comes from God.

And there is that arbitrary and nonsensical dividing line again. That doesn't answer *why* conception through intercourde is 'sacred' yet conception through IVF isnt. "Doesn't come from God." How does one even begin to go about defining that distinction in this case? As someone else mentioned, perhaps flippantly, doesn't everything ultimately come from God? If thus, then why is IVF outside of that scope?

I agree with Rob. This entire line of discussion is replete with contradictions and I don't get it at all.

edit: I see Clueless Morgan has done an except job of deconstructing this already, so I defer.