atheism and children

[Javaman]

Okay, well, you sorta dodged my question.

Based on your answer, I'm going to say you think it's wrong for the RCC to use it's influence to make IVF illegal. Is that a fair interpretation of your response?

If not, please answer my question more directly: Do you think the RCC should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

Edit: I'm also kinda puzzled that you keep giving me kudos.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.

When I say "the Catholic Church", I mean the Catholic Church as an organization or institution, complete with its decision-making hierarchy. Not Catholic people per se, but the people who are responsible for deciding on doctrine and what to do about it.

Do you think the Catholic Church (the institution) should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. It's a yes or no question.

[Clueless Morgan]

I like friendly discussions with people who respect each other and know how to exchange different opinions without getting upset at the person who thinks differently.

Just so things are clear, I have yet to be upset with you for thinking differently than I do.  I just don't understand your thought process and how you have come to hold the positions that you do. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I just  think saying "you can kill someone who might kill you" sounds very different from saying you have the right to exert only as much force as is necessary to stop someone who is trying to kill you. The former is not how I would describe my views on this, as it sounds much more liberal and merciless than the latter.

Whether it is more or less "merciless" than how you would phrase it, the meaning is exactly the same.  Whether you couch the phrase in the language of "use only enough force" or not, you're effectively say that if someone's actions against you would result in your death, you have the right to kill them if that's what it takes to save your own life.  It's exactly the same difference between saying "We are pursuing tactical air strikes against enemy combatants" and "Let's bomb them fuckers back to the stone age."  You may not like it, but the meaning of these phrases is the same.

What I believe is that if someone is coming after you with a knife, for example, and you can stop them by knocking them out, or running away and calling the cops, you should do that. But if the situation is such that the only way you can stop them from killing you is by shooting them, if your shot kills them, I don't think that's immoral on your part. Though it should be the absolute last resort. But yes, the idea is to always try to preserve life.

Well, it seems like what you're saying is that you should pursue your goal (saving your own life) with the least amount of harm to all parties (knocking them out, running away, calling the cops, etc.).  But when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, you say that the woman should avoid the intervention that does the least amount of harm to herself (the medical approach of taking pills that would directly abort the embryo in her Fallopian tube) in favor of the more invasive surgical option and all because you must avoid directly aborting the embryo... for some reason...

That makes no sense to me.

If the end result of either approach is the unavoidable termination of a pregnancy, then, to me, the best choice of how to proceed would be the least invasive procedure one could do with the fewest side effects and the lowest chance of complications to the only one who has a chance of surviving the procedure, the mother, and in at least some cases of ectopic pregnancy, that approach would be medical intervention.

I don't think this is the same scenario as an embryo implanting on the Fallopian tube. The baby is not an instigator who is trying to kill you, while the person viciously attacking you is, regardless of whether they would be deemed innocent by reason of insanity or not.

I disagree with your assumption that a mentally impaired person inherently intends to kill someone if they, in fact, succeed in doing so.  Are you saying, then, that a mentally impaired adult with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a young child should be allowed to kill you if their actions toward you could not be categorized as "vicious" or if it cannot be demonstrated that they were intentionally trying to kill you?  It's not even clear to me that a person of such mental capacity would even really understand what they're doing, let alone that they would be trying to kill you.

I also have a problem with you categorizing all such actions as vicious attacks.  Categorizing them in such a manner implies that the person performing the action is doing so maliciously or that they are intending to be cruel when, in the case of an adult who is afflicted with a mental impairment, imparting that person with the intention or motive to maliciously attack another person could very well be overstating that person's cognitive abilities.

They may be innocent for reason of insanity as far as the law and jail time is concerned, but they are still not innocent of trying to kill you.

So, again, you're saying that you can only mortally defend your own life if it can be demonstrated that the person has the intent to kill you?

Since I think one innocent human life is worth the same as any other innocent human life, I can't support killing one to save the other. If there is a problem involving the pregnancy, a doctor can try to do whatever they can to treat whatever the problem is. If the treatment ends in the unintended death of the mother's child (such as removal of a damaged tube), that's not immoral. But if the baby is specifically targeted to be killed, I do find that immoral. One is an unintended consequence/side effect, the other is a direct intent to kill another person.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the only treatment is to abort the pregnancy.  The only consideration once the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, to me, is what is the least invasive course of action to take that will result in the fewest potential complications for the woman who must undergo the treatment?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke.

Why?

I understand giving kudos in the context of "Dude, that was funny!" or "I agree!" or "This post makes a good point!" or even "I'm giving you kudos as a way of indicating that I have read your post" (which is kind of how I took a lot of your kudos, except that this would be a very inconsistent explanation of them) but giving kudos jokingly or sarcastically?  That I just don't get.

Is the recipient supposed to know it's a joke??

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.

When I say "the Catholic Church", I mean the Catholic Church as an organization or institution, complete with its decision-making hierarchy. Not Catholic people per se, but the people who are responsible for deciding on doctrine and what to do about it.

Do you think the Catholic Church (the institution) should use it's influence to make it illegal for anyone to use IVF?

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. It's a yes or no question.

Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church." But I see what you mean. You're referring to the higher ups. The Pope, Cardinals, etc.

Well first of all, I don't think they could make it illegal even if they wanted to. The governments world wide don't consult with the Church when making their laws, etc, so your question is flawed to begin with.
Second, I don't think any of those guys are interested in making IVF illegal anyway. There are plenty of things we (as a Church) think are immoral but that we don't think should be illegal. IVF is one of those things.

Abortion and the death penalty, on the other hand, are definitely things the higher ups have said should be illegal, and that we, as a Church, believe should be illegal. But as far as I know, they don't speak the same way about IVF. Neither do I think they should. The answer is no.

[Catholic_Lady]

I like friendly discussions with people who respect each other and know how to exchange different opinions without getting upset at the person who thinks differently.

Just so things are clear, I have yet to be upset with you for thinking differently than I do.  I just don't understand your thought process and how you have come to hold the positions that you do.  That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Fair enough. Some of your comments and the way you said things sounded condescending and like you were getting mad/frustrated, but perhaps I misunderstood. 

[Catholic_Lady]

I just  think saying "you can kill someone who might kill you" sounds very different from saying you have the right to exert only as much force as is necessary to stop someone who is trying to kill you. The former is not how I would describe my views on this, as it sounds much more liberal and merciless than the latter.

Whether it is more or less "merciless" than how you would phrase it, the meaning is exactly the same.  Whether you couch the phrase in the language of "use only enough force" or not, you're effectively say that if someone's actions against you would result in your death, you have the right to kill them if that's what it takes to save your own life.  It's exactly the same difference between saying "We are pursuing tactical air strikes against enemy combatants" and "Let's bomb them fuckers back to the stone age."  You may not like it, but the meaning of these phrases is the same.

Eh, I don't think it's specific enough to just say "it's ok to kill someone who might kill you." It sounds way more open than what I actually believe, and can definitely be a different meaning. It can mean you can just go to someone's house and murder them in their sleep if you feel threatened by them. And that's not in line with what I believe. Sounds like it's just a matter of semantics though, so as long as you fully understand what I mean, that's fine. It sounds like you do.

[Catholic_Lady]

What I believe is that if someone is coming after you with a knife, for example, and you can stop them by knocking them out, or running away and calling the cops, you should do that. But if the situation is such that the only way you can stop them from killing you is by shooting them, if your shot kills them, I don't think that's immoral on your part. Though it should be the absolute last resort. But yes, the idea is to always try to preserve life.

Well, it seems like what you're saying is that you should pursue your goal (saving your own life) with the least amount of harm to all parties (knocking them out, running away, calling the cops, etc.).  But when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, you say that the woman should avoid the intervention that does the least amount of harm to herself (the medical approach of taking pills that would directly abort the embryo in her Fallopian tube) in favor of the more invasive surgical option and all because you must avoid directly aborting the embryo... for some reason...

That makes no sense to me.

If the end result of either approach is the unavoidable termination of a pregnancy, then, to me, the best choice of how to proceed would be the least invasive procedure one could do with the fewest side effects and the lowest chance of complications to the only one who has a chance of surviving the procedure, the mother, and in at least some cases of ectopic pregnancy, that approach would be medical intervention.

I think you're having a hard time understanding my views on this because you're not seeing "an embryo" as a human being. You have to understand that I do. So let's take a five year old, for example (whom I'm sure you see as human), and let's say I was his mother. If the both of us got captured by terrorists and as a means to torture me, they held a gun to my head and said "either you kill your five year old, or you both will die." Would it be moral for me to do it? Is it moral to directly kill one innocent person in order to save another?

I don't think it is. If I killed my son, I would still have committed an immoral act. I'm sure my culpability/moral guilt would be mitigated considering the extremely difficult position I am in, but as an act itself, it is still an immoral act. And my son's fate would be the same whether I murdered him, or whether I didn't murder him and we both got killed, he would still end up dead. But at least I was not committing an immoral act, and I wouldn't have blood on my hands.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think this is the same scenario as an embryo implanting on the Fallopian tube. The baby is not an instigator who is trying to kill you, while the person viciously attacking you is, regardless of whether they would be deemed innocent by reason of insanity or not.

I disagree with your assumption that a mentally impaired person inherently intends to kill someone if they, in fact, succeed in doing so.  Are you saying, then, that a mentally impaired adult with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a young child should be allowed to kill you if their actions toward you could not be categorized as "vicious" or if it cannot be demonstrated that they were intentionally trying to kill you?  It's not even clear to me that a person of such mental capacity would even really understand what they're doing, let alone that they would be trying to kill you.

I also have a problem with you categorizing all such actions as vicious attacks.  Categorizing them in such a manner implies that the person performing the action is doing so maliciously or that they are intending to be cruel when, in the case of an adult who is afflicted with a mental impairment, imparting that person with the intention or motive to maliciously attack another person could very well be overstating that person's cognitive abilities.

I'm not saying they realize they're doing it, or that they understand what they're doing. But nonetheless, a person running after you with a knife, trying to stab you to death, is still a person running after you with a knife trying to stab you to death. It's up to the jury to figure out if this person is innocent for reason of insanity or not, but you still have the right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to murder you, even if they're insane and don't even realize they're doing it.

[Catholic_Lady]

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke.

Why?

I understand giving kudos in the context of "Dude, that was funny!" or "I agree!" or "This post makes a good point!" or even "I'm giving you kudos as a way of indicating that I have read your post" (which is kind of how I took a lot of your kudos, except that this would be a very inconsistent explanation of them) but giving kudos jokingly or sarcastically?  That I just don't get.

Is the recipient supposed to know it's a joke??

It's just become my own personal way of dealing with some of the stuff that get's thrown my way here. I never used to do that, but when someone here started to tell me that the only reason any of the men on this forum even pretend to respect me is because I suck their dick (along with other things from other people on that same thread), I've kinda lost a little bit of my kindness and genuineness towards the people here that I had before.

[Javaman]

...

Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church." But I see what you mean. You're referring to the higher ups. The Pope, Cardinals, etc.

Well first of all, I don't think they could make it illegal even if they wanted to. The governments world wide don't consult with the Church when making their laws, etc, so your question is flawed to begin with.
Second, I don't think any of those guys are interested in making IVF illegal anyway. There are plenty of things we (as a Church) think are immoral but that we don't think should be illegal. IVF is one of those things.

Abortion and the death penalty, on the other hand, are definitely things the higher ups have said should be illegal, and that we, as a Church, believe should be illegal. But as far as I know, they don't speak the same way about IVF. Neither do I think they should. The answer is no.

Okay, we agree that the Catholic Church should not use it's influence to make IVF illegal.

And while they technically can't make it illegal (yay secularism!), they can influence politicians by threatening to excommunicate them. It would appear that some the higher-ups miss the good ol' days of the middle ages when they had much more political power.

[Clueless Morgan]

Fair enough. Some of your comments and the way you said things sounded condescending and like you were getting mad/frustrated, but perhaps I misunderstood. 

And I find your use of smilies to be sometimes rather condescending but the way you intend your smilies to be interpreted has no bearing on the content of your arguments so the point of commenting on them before now was neither here nor there.

You wanna chalk it up to the nature of online discussion forum anonymity and carry on?

Eh, I don't think it's specific enough to just say "it's ok to kill someone who might kill you." It sounds way more open than what I actually believe, and can definitely be a different meaning. It can mean you can just go to someone's house and murder them in their sleep if you feel threatened by them. And that's not in line with what I believe. Sounds like it's just a matter of semantics though, so as long as you fully understand what I mean, that's fine. It sounds like you do.

I think we've both been reasonable enough to understand the the context in which the "it's acceptable to kill someone who might kill you" sentiment is being used in this discussion and it's not the "I can go murder someone in their sleep if I feel threatened by them" context.

I've said before that I'm not trying to trick you and this qualifies as one of those sorts of statements.

I think you're having a hard time understanding my views on this because you're not seeing "an embryo" as a human being. You have to understand that I do. So let's take a five year old, for example (whom I'm sure you see as human), and let's say I was his mother. If the both of us got captured by terrorists and as a means to torture me, they held a gun to my head and said "either you kill your five year old, or you both will die." Would it be moral for me to do it? Is it moral to directly kill one innocent person in order to save another?

That's a false analogy.

I think you are missing the point that in an ectopic pregnancy the embryo has to be aborted in order for the mother to survive at all, so if we put this in terms of your analogy it would be more like the terrorist telling the mother "I'm going to kill your kid no matter what, but you have a choice of either taking a cyanide pill or having me flay you alive" and even that doesn't work as a cogent analogy of an ectopic pregnancy.

(BTW, your analogy also equates the doctor treating the woman with the ectopic pregnancy to a terrorist.   )

I'm not saying they realize they're doing it, or that they understand what they're doing. But nonetheless, a person running after you with a knife, trying to stab you to death, is still a person running after you with a knife trying to stab you to death.

We're not talking about what weapon this mentally impaired innocent might use against you, if they even have an implement in their hand at all, we're talk about intent.  I understand you to have said that an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy doesn't intend to kill its mother, therefore the mother/doctor is not justified in directly aborting it.  Well, likewise, the innocent doesn't intend to kill their victim, so why is it acceptable (again, to use your words, "tragic not immoral") to directly kill the innocent but not the embryo?

It's up to the jury to figure out if this person is innocent for reason of insanity or not, but you still have the right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to murder you, even if they're insane and don't even realize they're doing it.

Wait, what??  Now this innocent is committing murder?  You do realize that "murder" means that the death was premeditated, right??  It means that the person who caused the death had to plan the death or intend to kill (in legal terms it's called "malice aforethought").  So how can a person who doesn't understand what they're doing or understand the consequences of their actions murder someone?