[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.[/quote]
But if a couple has had unprotected sex in that month they could have created an embryo that did not implant. Is this not a person worthy of your respect and a baptism?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And ruin his meditation time!?!?!? For shame Christopher. I thought you were more considerate than this.
[/quote]
Your consistently vague. This has nothing to do with HH. Why don’t you try and start being clear and concise in explaining yourself. It works better to convince people of the truth.[/quote]You didn’t understand what I was saying to him Chris?
Can’t believe I have to explain this…
Faith = accepting the validity of a concept that is not ultimately rooted in perceptual data. The ultimate faith is in the concept of God, a being that no one can specifically define or trace back to verifiable perceptions.
Reason = the forming of concepts by analysis of our percepts, in particular detecting similarities and differences.
Subjective experience CAN be of God but such knowledge is purely subjective (read Kirkegaard). God exists but is much more like the God of Spinoza, not a God who condemns women to hellfire for using in-vitro (an idea so heinous, condemning a woman for that, that one has to say that those spouting such insanity have never heard the words of Jesus. Oh, they may have read them but the words passed through, like shit through a bird.)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And ruin his meditation time!?!?!? For shame Christopher. I thought you were more considerate than this.
[/quote]
Your consistently vague. This has nothing to do with HH. Why don’t you try and start being clear and concise in explaining yourself. It works better to convince people of the truth.[/quote]You didn’t understand what I was saying to him Chris?
[/quote]
Nope, I’m not very smart. Thought we went over this.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.[/quote]
But if a couple has had unprotected sex in that month they could have created an embryo that did not implant. Is this not a person worthy of your respect and a baptism?[/quote]
This is why I advocate having sex while open carrying.
Sorry, I assumed you were referring to a woman’s period. You cannot baptize a period. It is unreasonable to assume that a woman is pregnant if she has her period. So, it is also unreasonable to do some kind of search and rescue for a possible embryo. If there, however, is an embryo it is not a great tragedy.
However, if an embryo or fetus is found then (such as a miscarriage), yes Canon Law dictates that it is to be baptized. This is done in hospitals everyday when children are born that are going to die soon possibly. I’ve baptized a little person before, quite interesting.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.[/quote]
But if a couple has had unprotected sex in that month they could have created an embryo that did not implant. Is this not a person worthy of your respect and a baptism?[/quote]
This is why I advocate having sex while open carrying.
Sorry, I assumed you were referring to a woman’s period. You cannot baptize a period. It is unreasonable to assume that a woman is pregnant if she has her period. So, it is also unreasonable to do some kind of search and rescue for a possible embryo. If there, however, is an embryo it is not a great tragedy.
However, if an embryo or fetus is found then (such as a miscarriage), yes Canon Law dictates that it is to be baptized. This is done in hospitals everyday when children are born that are going to die soon possibly. I’ve baptized a little person before, quite interesting.[/quote]
Since you have stated it is not a great tragedy for one embryo to pass you clearly show that you also do not hold the embryo to be on the same level as another human being. Why all the outrage over IVF then?
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.[/quote]
But if a couple has had unprotected sex in that month they could have created an embryo that did not implant. Is this not a person worthy of your respect and a baptism?[/quote]
This is why I advocate having sex while open carrying.
Sorry, I assumed you were referring to a woman’s period. You cannot baptize a period. It is unreasonable to assume that a woman is pregnant if she has her period. So, it is also unreasonable to do some kind of search and rescue for a possible embryo. If there, however, is an embryo it is not a great tragedy.
However, if an embryo or fetus is found then (such as a miscarriage), yes Canon Law dictates that it is to be baptized. This is done in hospitals everyday when children are born that are going to die soon possibly. I’ve baptized a little person before, quite interesting.[/quote]
Since you have stated it is not a great tragedy for one embryo to pass you clearly show that you also do not hold the embryo to be on the same level as another human being. Why all the outrage over IVF then?[/quote]
I don’t give much thought to those killed by lightning strikes every year. However, if I could know where a lightning strike was to land, I wouldn’t suggest that someone should stand there and wait for a prize.
Dumb nature has unwilled consequences. That doesn’t mean we should emulate it’s tragedies with premeditation, willfully, and arrogantly just because our limited minds aren’t paralyzed with grieving over every unplanned lightning death or loss of embryo.
Consequences of dumb, non-sentient nature.
Premeditated human action.
Two different things, period.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Since you have stated it is not a great tragedy for one embryo to pass you clearly show that you also do not hold the embryo to be on the same level as another human being.[/quote]
This is an interesting statement, because I first did not say that it was not a great tragedy for an embryo or fetus (latin: little one or offspring) to pass. Second if it really wasn’t a great tragedy for an embryo to pass, that has nothing to do with what level I view the embryo compared to another human being. I do not view it to be a great tragedy for grandma to pass at an old age, has nothing with if I see her on the same level as another human being.
I do not find death to be a great tragedy inherently. I find how one dies to make it a great tragedy or not, sometimes it is a great victory.
What I was referring to, is that it is not a great tragedy for a fetus to die without being baptism. The Church holds that those who are under the age of reason have hope even if they die without baptism. That is why I said it is not a great tragedy.
Differences, they make a difference.
Well, besides your non-sequitor, I suggest you look into the principle of double-effect.
IVF uses a means that are morally bad (creating and destroying numerous fetuses in order for one fetus to be born), having sex has a possible double effect of the fetuses not being implanted.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Since you have stated it is not a great tragedy for one embryo to pass you clearly show that you also do not hold the embryo to be on the same level as another human being.[/quote]
This is an interesting statement, because I first did not say that it was not a great tragedy for an embryo or fetus (latin: little one or offspring) to pass. Second if it really wasn’t a great tragedy for an embryo to pass, that has nothing to do with what level I view the embryo compared to another human being. I do not view it to be a great tragedy for grandma to pass at an old age, has nothing with if I see her on the same level as another human being.
I do not find death to be a great tragedy inherently. I find how one dies to make it a great tragedy or not, sometimes it is a great victory.
What I was referring to, is that it is not a great tragedy for a fetus to die without being baptism. The Church holds that those who are under the age of reason have hope even if they die without baptism. That is why I said it is not a great tragedy.
Differences, they make a difference.
Well, besides your non-sequitor, I suggest you look into the principle of double-effect.
IVF uses a means that are morally bad (creating and destroying numerous fetuses in order for one fetus to be born), having sex has a possible double effect of the fetuses not being implanted. [/quote]
IVF creates no fetuses, only embryos and occasionally a blastocycst. They don’t create and destroy them at will. They harvest eggs, find mature ones, attempt to fertilize the mature ones. If one has been fertilized they watch it to see if it becomes a healthy embryo, some don’t make it, some do and of those that do several eggs are injected in the hopes that some will implant into the uterus, sometimes one or even multiple will, other times none will. You attempt to make it sound as if there is a team of scientists running embryos through a meat grinder 24/7 and that is simply not what happens.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Natural conception has a very high failure rate for implantation in which the embryo is then expelled via the monthly cycle. If an embryo is a person, and persons find salvation in baptism, should not this monthly embryo be baptized?[/quote]
There isn’t a monthly embryo, there is an egg, yes. An egg is not a person, it is from of a person.[/quote]
But if a couple has had unprotected sex in that month they could have created an embryo that did not implant. Is this not a person worthy of your respect and a baptism?[/quote]
This is why I advocate having sex while open carrying.
Sorry, I assumed you were referring to a woman’s period. You cannot baptize a period. It is unreasonable to assume that a woman is pregnant if she has her period. So, it is also unreasonable to do some kind of search and rescue for a possible embryo. If there, however, is an embryo it is not a great tragedy.
However, if an embryo or fetus is found then (such as a miscarriage), yes Canon Law dictates that it is to be baptized. This is done in hospitals everyday when children are born that are going to die soon possibly. I’ve baptized a little person before, quite interesting.[/quote]
Since you have stated it is not a great tragedy for one embryo to pass you clearly show that you also do not hold the embryo to be on the same level as another human being. Why all the outrage over IVF then?[/quote]
I don’t give much thought to those killed by lightning strikes every year. However, if I could know where a lightning strike was to land, I wouldn’t suggest that someone should stand there and wait for a prize.
Dumb nature has unwilled consequences. That doesn’t mean we should emulate it’s tragedies with premeditation, willfully, and arrogantly just because our limited minds aren’t paralyzed with grieving over every unplanned lightning death or loss of embryo.
Consequences of dumb, non-sentient nature.
Premeditated human action.
Two different things, period.[/quote]
So when the facts don’t help your case it is just “dumb nature” and no longer intelligent design? Now that you are informed, would it not be premeditated of you to have unprotected sex with your wife knowing that there is a chance that a life will be created then perish? I mean there are other options, you could always adopt. There are lots of unwanted children out there.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
So when the facts don’t help your case it is just “dumb nature” and no longer intelligent design?[/quote]
Do you wish to carry on like an idiot? Don’t help my case? Intelligent design? What?
[quote] Now that you are informed, would it not be premeditated of you to have unprotected sex with your wife knowing that there is a chance that a life will be created then perish? I mean there are other options, you could always adopt. There are lots of unwanted children out there.
[/quote]
That is the natural design of reproduction. Dumb nature. I’d try not to breathe too, if it wouldn’t pass on a potentially lethal infection to an immune-compromised individual. But humanity must breathe and reproduce. The commercial creation and destruction of human life, not so much. Hopefully this thread is better by the morning.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
So when the facts don’t help your case it is just “dumb nature” and no longer intelligent design?[/quote]
Do you wish to carry on like an idiot? Don’t help my case? Intelligent design? What?
[quote] Now that you are informed, would it not be premeditated of you to have unprotected sex with your wife knowing that there is a chance that a life will be created then perish? I mean there are other options, you could always adopt. There are lots of unwanted children out there.
[/quote]
That is the natural design of reproduction. Dumb nature. I’d try not to breathe too, if it wouldn’t pass on a potentially lethal infection to an immune-compromised individual.
[/quote]
And dumb nature doesn’t allow some people to reproduce normally. But you’ve also avoided one other question, Why wouldn’t you adopt knowing that you could be taking lives?
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
So when the facts don’t help your case it is just “dumb nature” and no longer intelligent design?[/quote]
Do you wish to carry on like an idiot? Don’t help my case? Intelligent design? What?
[quote] Now that you are informed, would it not be premeditated of you to have unprotected sex with your wife knowing that there is a chance that a life will be created then perish? I mean there are other options, you could always adopt. There are lots of unwanted children out there.
[/quote]
That is the natural design of reproduction. Dumb nature. I’d try not to breathe too, if it wouldn’t pass on a potentially lethal infection to an immune-compromised individual.
[/quote]
And dumb nature doesn’t allow some people to reproduce normally. But you’ve also avoided one other question, Why wouldn’t you adopt knowing that you could be taking lives?[/quote]
How does adopting the last of the reproduced children ever, continue to reproduce humanity?
Reproduction is a brute fact of nature.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
So when the facts don’t help your case it is just “dumb nature” and no longer intelligent design?[/quote]
Do you wish to carry on like an idiot? Don’t help my case? Intelligent design? What?
[quote] Now that you are informed, would it not be premeditated of you to have unprotected sex with your wife knowing that there is a chance that a life will be created then perish? I mean there are other options, you could always adopt. There are lots of unwanted children out there.
[/quote]
That is the natural design of reproduction. Dumb nature. I’d try not to breathe too, if it wouldn’t pass on a potentially lethal infection to an immune-compromised individual.
[/quote]
And dumb nature doesn’t allow some people to reproduce normally. But you’ve also avoided one other question, Why wouldn’t you adopt knowing that you could be taking lives?[/quote]
How does adopting the last of the reproduced children ever, continue to reproduce humanity?
[/quote]
There are plenty of non-Catholics who are making babies. The world won’t run out.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Reproduction is a brute fact of nature.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily think it is brutal, it’s inefficient.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
There are plenty of non-Catholics who are making babies. The world won’t run out.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but what exactly does Catholic, and/or not Catholic, status have to do with the brute fact of reproduction as a natural biological process, whose mechanisms are dominated by dumb nature. What point are you trying to arrive at? Maybe I can give you some direction.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
There are plenty of non-Catholics who are making babies. The world won’t run out.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but what exactly does Catholic and/not Catholic status have to do with the brute fact of reproduction as a natural biological process, whose mechanisms are dominated by dumb nature. What point are you trying to arrive at? Maybe I can give you some direction.
[/quote]
That Catholics, who so cherish life, should be willing to forgo sex as a means of reproduction due to the inefficiency of natural conception, and should instead adopt. Adoption as an alternative means is what has been recommended for those who would need IVF.