atheism and children

[Catholic_Lady]

Except "it's unnatural," in isolation, was never the reason I gave for why we believe IVF is immoral.

More straw, but I'm used to it.

No straw there, you're the one who refuses to discuss it in any detail.

I did. Several times.

[Cephus]

No straw there, you're the one who refuses to discuss it in any detail.

I did. Several times.

At best, at least that I've seen and you can direct me to a specific post where you do otherwise if I'm wrong, you just say "this is what I believe, this is what my church teaches, so there".  You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but if blind faith is all your opinions are based on, how can anyone take you seriously, especially now that you are telling us that you refuse to talk about your beliefs, as you recently said in post #141.  How can you expect anyone to think that your beliefs are valid if  you cannot spell out why you hold them, other than "the church says so"?

[Javaman]

You said that IVF was an immoral and illicit act, and compared it to a criminal activity. So yeah, you did say the IVF babies are the product of immoral and illicit activities. You're the only one offering up straw here.

You have likened me to a criminal, CL, because I wanted a family and used science to make it happen.

And you want me to be cool with your belief in the superstitious mumbo jumbo that supposedly justifies your bigoted attitudes?

I don't think so.

And, again, will a rapist receive a worse punishment than me in the afterlife? You seem pretty clear about the Church's teachings on IVF.... why can't you figure out the answer to my question?

I said all children are sacred and precious. And they should not be seen as a "product of an immoral act" anymore than rape children should be seen as a "product of an immoral act." The means by which a child was conceived bears absolutely nothing on the child herself.

The analogy I used in regards to attaining $10 through stealing or working was not to compare the 2 acts (otherwise you'd also be saying that I'm comparing a child to $10), it was to explain how I believe there can be a right and a wrong way to go about obtaining the same end results. I used "stealing" because I know that stealing is something that y'all would consider an immoral act and so I thought it would help better explain where I am coming from. Nothing more, nothing less.

I actually don't care if you're cool with it or not. I do find it very interesting that you are so deeply offended by my personal belief that IVF is not moral, yet are totally ok with someone saying "I think having kids is immoral and I look down on people who have them." At least I don't look down on people who do IVF.

But, I digress.

If you define IVF as an immoral and illicit act, then IVF babies are, by your definition, the product of an immoral and illicit act. Whether or not you think the actual product is sacred and precious is irrelevant. Now I'm annoyed that your willful obtuseness has forced me to describe children as "products" so that you can understand my point.

Do you genuinely not get that? Or is your obtuseness part of some sort of long-range rhetorical ploy?

And your analogy about attaining $10 explicitly compares IVF to a criminal act. You did compare a child to $10, elsewise your analogy makes even less sense than it already does. WTF? IVF produces a child. Robbing someone produces $10 just like shoveling snow produces $10.

Do you even read what you write before you post it?

I never said I was "totally Ok" with someone saying having kids is immoral.

And you were complaining about me throwing some fucking straw into the conversation.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You said that IVF was an immoral and illicit act, and compared it to a criminal activity. So yeah, you did say the IVF babies are the product of immoral and illicit activities. You're the only one offering up straw here.

You have likened me to a criminal, CL, because I wanted a family and used science to make it happen.

And you want me to be cool with your belief in the superstitious mumbo jumbo that supposedly justifies your bigoted attitudes?

I don't think so.

And, again, will a rapist receive a worse punishment than me in the afterlife? You seem pretty clear about the Church's teachings on IVF.... why can't you figure out the answer to my question?

I said all children are sacred and precious. And they should not be seen as a "product of an immoral act" anymore than rape children should be seen as a "product of an immoral act." The means by which a child was conceived bears absolutely nothing on the child herself.

The analogy I used in regards to attaining $10 through stealing or working was not to compare the 2 acts (otherwise you'd also be saying that I'm comparing a child to $10), it was to explain how I believe there can be a right and a wrong way to go about obtaining the same end results. I used "stealing" because I know that stealing is something that y'all would consider an immoral act and so I thought it would help better explain where I am coming from. Nothing more, nothing less.

I actually don't care if you're cool with it or not. I do find it very interesting that you are so deeply offended by my personal belief that IVF is not moral, yet are totally ok with someone saying "I think having kids is immoral and I look down on people who have them." At least I don't look down on people who do IVF.

But, I digress.

That's like saying that the money obtained through dirty means is not dirty money.
If you have something against the methods through which IVF babies are born,then you automatically imply that you have something against the children itself whether you know it or not.

1)You are saying that the methods through which IVF babies are born is immoral.
2)Then you say that the children born through an immoral act such as rape shouldn't be viewed as a product of an immoral act.

In the first argument you are saying that:
*The method through which IVF babies are born is immoral and therefore imply that they should be seen as a product of an immoral act,but say that they shouldn't.
Then in the second argument you say that:
*The method through which rape babies are born is immoral and then you say that they should not be seen as a product of an immoral act,but imply that they should.

Like always,your inconsistency in arguments never ceases to amuse me.
I think it's time that you realize why your arguments rising from your book of rules formulated in a time period when science had little to no prevalence is a joke in the current society where science dominates the flying spaghetti monster.Good night.

[Jenny A]

How do antichoicers read the verses in Numbers and not realize that it describes an abortion? I have had some Christians tell me that all the murder in the Old Testament or that is supposed to occur in the future is not evil because god committed it.  So, maybe they look at the verses in Numbers the same way. An abortion is not evil if god's priests give a adulterous whore the drink that causes her to miscarry.

You know abortions are the results of disobedience to God, fornication and adultery is responsible for probably 100% of the cases.

---

So it's ok to abort fetuses if their mothers cheated?  How is that not an abortion?  Come to think of it, it's a common reason for abortion now.

[Javaman]

...

The analogy I used in regards to attaining $10 through stealing or working was not to compare the 2 acts (otherwise you'd also be saying that I'm comparing a child to $10), it was to explain how I believe there can be a right and a wrong way to go about obtaining the same end results.

But, I digress.

Jesus fucking Christ. An analogy, by definition, is a comparison.

Are you willfully trying to deceive us? Or are you just utterly ignorant?


I can't think of any other options.

You're not digresssing. You're evading and prevaricating. Ignorance isn't a sin, so I think I know what your answer should be.

[Alex K]

It might interest you that I'll be fixing sweet pudding from scratch later, with starch, sugar and cocoa powder, and as an added bonus, I'll sink 50g of mint chocolate into it. The good swiss stuff.

How fast can I make it across the Atlantic ocean?

You now have 5 minutes

[Jenny A]

So, you aren't denying that the verses in Numbers describe an abortion? How  is fornication and adultery responsible for abortions? Are you saying that you are fine with god killing off fetuses of adulterous women?

The verses in numbers describe a test for faithfulness to your husband, the curse or as you call it "abortion" is a result of unfaithfulness.

Uh huh, and if she is unfaithful the fetus dies.  That's what we call an abortion.

[massey904]

The verses in numbers describe a test for faithfulness to your husband, the curse or as you call it "abortion" is a result of unfaithfulness.

Uh huh, and if she is unfaithful the fetus dies.  That's what we call an abortion.

There's nothing positive about unfaithfulness.

[abaris]

The verses in numbers describe a test for faithfulness to your husband, the curse or as you call it "abortion" is a result of unfaithfulness.

Yet the bible doesn't take a stance against abortion. A fetus is often compared to water and sometimes to a limb of the mother. It never gets it's own personality or value for that matter. The old testament even gives instructions for abortions by the priest if the husband thinks one of his wives (yes, usually there are many) cheated on him.