atheism and children

[Catholic_Lady]

Here was the first time I addressed it:


I later, in multiple other posts, added to this by saying that by "reproduction" we mean the actual conception... the actual joining of egg and sperm, which is the fixed point when a new human life begins.

Since we think human life is sacred, and thus the creation of human life is sacred, we believe it should remain guarded and protected in the confines of sexual intercourse. Remember, we also think sex is sacred. As is marriage, and as is the love between husband and wife. We think something as sacred as human life should come from a place that is equally as sacred - the lovemaking between husband and wife, where a human being can come into this world through love, literally.

We don't think masturbating into a jar and then having a stranger join sperm and egg together on a petri dish in a medical office, is the proper context for such a sacred thing as the beginning of new human life to take place.

Of course, none of this can even begin to make sense to you if you don't think human life is sacred, if you don't think sex is sacred, and if you don't think the love between husband and wife and marriage is sacred lol. But we do. So you have to see it through our lenses if you're genuinely trying to understand where we are coming from.

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

We think something as sacred as human life should come from a place that is equally as sacred - the lovemaking between husband and wife, where a human being can come into this world through love, literally.

You're saying human life should come from a loving sexual act, so what does that say about a human life conceived during a violent one?

You can "should" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that some percentage of human life will be conceived through a sex act that is completely devoid of any "sacredness" or notion of "lovemaking" - even when the sex act is taking place between a husband and a wife.  Marital rape is a thing.

I know you have tried to disassociate the act of conception from the worth of the person conceived, but you cannot deny that the sentiment that you are expressing here strongly implies that human lives that are conceived though anything other than your definition of "sacred lovemaking" are lesser and that is bullshit.

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

We don't think masturbating into a jar and then having a stranger join sperm and egg together on a petri dish in a medical office, is the proper context for such a sacred thing as the beginning of new human life to take place.

What does the manner of ones' conception have to do with anything?  Do you think that being an IVF baby will have some lasting physical, emotional or social consequences on that person?  If so, why?  And what's the data you are using the support this notion?  If not, then what the hell does the "sacredness" of the conception method matter to anything?

What do you mean by "have to do with anything?" I just personally don't think it's a moral way of conceiving. That's all.

And to answer your question about the negative consequences for the child themselves, the answer is No. It only matters because we believe sacred things need to be treated with reverence and kept in a particular context, and to not do so is immoral in our opinion.

[abaris]

It only matters because we believe sacred things need to be treated with reverence and kept in a particular context, and to not do so is immoral in our opinion.

Not to beat a dead horse, but where's the absence of reverence in IVF conception?

[Longhorn]

It only matters because we believe sacred things need to be treated with reverence and kept in a particular context, and to not do so is immoral in our opinion.

Not to beat a dead horse, but where's the absence of reverence in IVF conception?

To paraphrase, if the peepee doesn't touch the lady parts baby Geesus cries sweet buttery tears.

Which makes one wonder.... Where is the line?

If the man and woman both reach an orgasm in each other's presence while the egg is being fertilized, does it still count as a nono?
What if the man is performing the ivf and they both reach orgasm?


Wait, does this mean the cathol states that rape is sacred but ivf is immoral? Huh -_-

[Lemonvariable72]

What does the manner of ones' conception have to do with anything?  Do you think that being an IVF baby will have some lasting physical, emotional or social consequences on that person?  If so, why?  And what's the data you are using the support this notion?  If not, then what the hell does the "sacredness" of the conception method matter to anything?

What do you mean by "have to do with anything?" I just personally don't think it's a moral way of conceiving. That's all.

And your answer your question about the negative consequences for the child themselves, the answer is No. It only matters because we believe sacred things need to be treated with reverence and kept in a particular context, and to not do so is immoral in our opinion.

Ivf immoral? What pain and suffering does it bring to the people that want it that is not brought by normal pregnancy and sex?

[Exian]

That's a good question, Vic. Another instance of both partners (or more commonly, one partner) reaching orgasm and ending up with a fertilized egg, but not having the egg be in the uterus, is an ectopic pregnancy. If caught soon enough the mother's life can be saved, but there are currently no methods for removing the embryo from the fallopian tube and placing it in the uterus. The fertilized egg is terminated. But there are cases where, instead of ending up in the fallopian tube, the fertilized egg ends up somewhere with good blood supply, say, the liver, in what's called an abdominal pregnancy. It's very rare (1 in a million)and very dangerous for the mother, but there are cases where both have survived. Usually with a lot of medical intervention. I wonder if this would be considered sacred? Its a pregnancy that doesn't take place inside the uterus, but it's still inside the mother.

I've mentioned this before, but the uterus has very little to do with supporting the baby's life. It's the embryo that carries all the instructions for implanting into the mother. In other words, the uterus doesnt attach to the embryo via some welcomig grasp or inviting arteries. The uterus is there to protect the mothers life; otherwise, the baby will keep taking and taking, leaving very little energy for the mother. This is why an embryo is able to implant almost anywhere and survive, although the mother probably won't unless it is treated.

Just a fun fact, even though we have a placenta sack, we still have a vestigial yolk!

Even more fun fact, the first thing that forms after we attach to the uterus and go through cell division is what eventually becomes our digestive tract. We literally start out as buttholes.

[Catholic_Lady]

It doesn't matter where in the body the new life ends up attaching itself, especially since there is nothing we can do to prevent this from happening. If the conception happened through the lovemaking between husband and wife, it still happened through its rightful context.

[Longhorn]

So where do you draw the line? Is ivf during sex or mutual masturbation still unacceptable?

Really, rape sacred but ivf immoral -_-

[Alex K]

@CL

See, you can consider sacred whatever you want. The problem I (we) have with your view is that it seems so disconnected from any actual concerns about actual human beings and their well being and instead focuses on something so seemingly arbitrary that it almost appears insane. Imagine there's a cure for a disease and people are opposed to it because the pills have the wrong color. This is how your views (on this particular issue) appear to outsiders.