[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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.[/quote]
And, why would Catholics forgo reproduction due to the guilt of dumb nature, again?
As it should be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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.[/quote]
And why, would Catholics forego reproduction due to the guilt of dumb nature, again?
As it should be.[/quote]
Catholics are the ones who have issues with embryos being destroyed. If Catholics know that there is a very high failure rate for embryos to be implanted through natural conception and that most of those embryos will perish, they would be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Catholics are the ones who have issues with embryos being destroyed. If Catholics know that there is a very high failure rate for embryos to be implanted through natural conception and that most of those embryos will perish, would they not be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
Catholics have an issue with the willful and commercial creation and destruction of the human embryo. Now that you actually have our position, move on?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And I could’ve sworn, until recently, I had you on ignore (the conspiracy stuff, and alt accounts). Fixed.[/quote]
Actually, on that note, it would be nice to have the ignore feature just remove the content of a users post instead of making the user invisible.
Not everyone quotes the person they are talking to, and that can become very confusing.
Actually, that’s probably why I don’t keep people on ignore for very long.[/quote]
I see your having a conversation with another one of those conservatives that you’d have a beer with.
[/quote]
And I see you’re still trying to make yourself relevant.
[/quote]
There you go flattering yourself again. No one, makes themselves relevant by talking to you. I was just reminding you of how chummy you thought you were with the other conservatives on this board. The fact is that most of them, like me, can’t stand you. That you never knew this is humorous. I guess you’ll have to move this into the column of things you thought you knew but were wrong about. That column will grow as you move along in life.
[/quote]
And yet you continue to respond to me. Your mancrush is adorable, but I’m not gay, and the age difference between us makes your love for me a little creepy.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
…they would be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
No, nature would unwillfully be ending those lives.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Catholics are the ones who have issues with embryos being destroyed. If Catholics know that there is a very high failure rate for embryos to be implanted through natural conception and that most of those embryos will perish, would they not be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
Catholics have an issue with the willful and commercial creation and destruction of the human embryo. Now that you actually have our position, move on? [/quote]
So your issue is with people making money by helping people conceive, because willfull, creation, and destruction are all applicable to natural conception as well. Well then it sounds like you guys are attacking the wrong end of this relationship because those poor parents have been labeled mortal sinners and it was not the fertility doctor who was fired.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
…they would be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
No, nature would unwillfully be ending those lives.
[/quote]
Did nature spontaneously create the embryo? I didn’t think so.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
…they would be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
No, nature would unwillfully be ending those lives.
[/quote]
Did nature spontaneously create the embryo? I didn’t think so.[/quote]
Actually, nature did create the embryo. If adaptions, such as reproduction, are ultimately traced to random mutations (accidents in nature), you could even say spontaneously. Unless your theory is that a non-sexually reproducing ancestral human sat down one day and designed the embryo.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
…they would be willfully ending the lives of embryos and should then seek other means to children, namely adoption.
[/quote]
No, nature would unwillfully be ending those lives.
[/quote]
Did nature spontaneously create the embryo? I didn’t think so.[/quote]
Actually, nature did create the embryo. If adaptions, such as reproduction, are ultimately traced to random mutations (accidents in nature), you could even say spontaneously. Unless your theory is that a non-reproducing ancestral human sat down one day and designed the embryo.
[/quote]
You are attempting to detract. This is not about millions of years of evolution but two folks getting carnal to reproduce.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is not about millions of years of evolution but two folks getting carnal to reproduce.
[/quote]
Ahem…Reread what you just wrote.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[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.[/quote]Serious, when embryos are implanted they just skip the fetus stage. I made a typographical mistake when I was editing my post. Please, accept my apologies, it was supposed to be “embryos in order for one embryo to be implanted and born” however, for whatever reason…T-Nation didn’t want to take the edit. However, that does not change their status as a person.
They don’t create them at will? What are they just throwing seamen around the room for fun and may or may not get some on some eggs?
So they do create them willfully. Okay. Slightly confusing, but I’ll try to follow.
So, you’re saying they knowingly create inseminate all these eggs (creating person) knowing that some will die in the hopes of implanting one. So, willfully creating and destroying persons.
Lol, you give me too much credit.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is not about millions of years of evolution but two folks getting carnal to reproduce.
[/quote]
Ahem…Reread what you just wrote.
[/quote]
Yes and the point still stands. You blamed the death of the embryo on dumb nature, as if nature just drummed up the embryo inside the woman. When in fact it was the actions of two people that led to the death of the embryo.
Lord have mercy, I thought us catholics were the only ones who hated science, intelligence, freedom, and technology - via HH.
Guess we understand human nature and science a little better than people give us credit for…I mean, heck we basically invented the modern scientific method. Guessed we ain’t too shabby when it comes to science, intelligence, and technology stuff after all.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This is not about millions of years of evolution but two folks getting carnal to reproduce.
[/quote]
Ahem…Reread what you just wrote.
[/quote]
Yes and the point still stands. You blamed the death of the embryo on dumb nature, as if nature just drummed up the embryo inside the woman. When in fact it was the actions of two people that led to the death of the embryo.[/quote]
Well, no. Nature led to the death of the embryo. The two individuals have no control in design or implementation over nature’s mechanism for reproduction. Look, Beef, nobody buys this comparison of naturally dictated (by dumb nature) sexual reproduction to the commercial and clinical creation of human life. You can keep stretching, if you want, but it’s silly.
See you folks later. Maybe.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[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.[/quote]Serious, when embryos are implanted they just skip the fetus stage. I made a typographical mistake when I was editing my post. Please, accept my apologies, it was supposed to be “embryos in order for one embryo to be implanted and born” however, for whatever reason…T-Nation didn’t want to take the edit. However, that does not change their status as a person.
They don’t create them at will? What are they just throwing seamen around the room for fun and may or may not get some on some eggs?
So they do create them willfully. Okay. Slightly confusing, but I’ll try to follow.
So, you’re saying they knowingly create inseminate all these eggs (creating person) knowing that some will die in the hopes of implanting one. So, willfully creating and destroying persons.
Lol, you give me too much credit. [/quote]
I was specifically referring to your own statement of “creating and destroying” as if you were referring to that is all that there is to the process. If the couple has 7 total embryos some will be injected, some given to fertility clinics and some destroyed. A couple having sex every month for 12 months in an attempt to conceive will likely create and destroy more embryos than this process.
Recent poll on gay marriage.
50% of Catholic support it
88% of no-religious identity support it
38% or protestants support it.
^ wrong thread
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Recent poll on gay marriage.
50% of Catholic support it
88% of no-religious identity support it
38% or protestants support it.[/quote]And 0% of actually born again believers support it.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[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.[/quote]Serious, when embryos are implanted they just skip the fetus stage. I made a typographical mistake when I was editing my post. Please, accept my apologies, it was supposed to be “embryos in order for one embryo to be implanted and born” however, for whatever reason…T-Nation didn’t want to take the edit. However, that does not change their status as a person.
They don’t create them at will? What are they just throwing seamen around the room for fun and may or may not get some on some eggs?
So they do create them willfully. Okay. Slightly confusing, but I’ll try to follow.
So, you’re saying they knowingly create inseminate all these eggs (creating person) knowing that some will die in the hopes of implanting one. So, willfully creating and destroying persons.
Lol, you give me too much credit. [/quote]
I was specifically referring to your own statement of “creating and destroying” as if you were referring to that is all that there is to the process. If the couple has 7 total embryos some will be injected, some given to fertility clinics and some destroyed. A couple having sex every month for 12 months in an attempt to conceive will likely create and destroy more embryos than this process.
[/quote]
Easy litmus test: Can you give us a situation in which a man and a woman attempting to have a child via the good old fashioned penis in the vagina method would want any zygote/embryo/fetus/child of theirs to be prematurely expelled and die? Because this is what you need to demonstrate in order to justify the imbecilic line of argument you are attempting here.
Here, for the fiftieth time, is the difference:
Situation 1: A couple attempts to conceive a child naturally. The new human life, through no act or influence of their will, fails to make it to term, and is expelled. I will repeat: They had no hand in the death. Only in the conception.
Situation 2: An egg, or rather, multiple eggs are fertilized by hand, with the full knowledge and will of both the doctors and scientists involved, and the would-be parents, that many of these embryos are created, in essence, for death, as that is the only way to assure a viable final pregnancy. Again, I repeat: They were not only fully aware of, but were the actual actors in this case, the agents of those embryos’ destruction.
And, by the way, no one, not one other person on this site, will support you or even agrees with you. Not even the militant atheist ones. If I’m wrong, please, do pop in and post your support. I expect nothing but a deafening silence, however.