[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
And 0% of actual Catholics in communion with the Church support it either. Glad to see we are on the same side for once, Tirib.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
And 0% of actual Catholics in communion with the Church support it either. Glad to see we are on the same side for once, Tirib.
[/quote]
What % of self-professed Catholics would you say are in communion with the Church?
I was surprised to hear Sloth say pat was out of communion with the church based on his position on birth control.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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]
As I were. I’m not so stop thinking I am, I’m talking about a specific part of it. Got it?
You still admit they destroy the embryos, therefore they destroy human beings in order to create one. They knowingly and willfully destroy persons in the hopes of one being born. If I have seven kids and I like one the best and I send some of the others for possible adoption and the rest I kill…well, that is wrong. However, if I have seven kids and a few live to old age and some die of natural causes…that’s sad, but it’s not the purposeful killing of my children. To compare the two is ludicrous and absurd.
[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]
slow clap
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
And 0% of actual Catholics in communion with the Church support it either. Glad to see we are on the same side for once, Tirib.
[/quote]
What % of self-professed Catholics would you say are in communion with the Church?
I was surprised to hear Sloth say pat was out of communion with the church based on his position on birth control.
[/quote]
Lower than 50%.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
And 0% of actual Catholics in communion with the Church support it either. Glad to see we are on the same side for once, Tirib.
[/quote]
What % of self-professed Catholics would you say are in communion with the Church?
I was surprised to hear Sloth say pat was out of communion with the church based on his position on birth control.
[/quote]
Lower than 50%.[/quote]
ROTFL!
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
And 0% of actual Catholics in communion with the Church support it either. Glad to see we are on the same side for once, Tirib.
[/quote]
What % of self-professed Catholics would you say are in communion with the Church?
I was surprised to hear Sloth say pat was out of communion with the church based on his position on birth control.
[/quote]
Not my place to say, and I have no idea. What I do know is that when a self-professed Catholic publicly supports certain grave matter such as this, IVF, and abortion, among others, I can safely say that he is out of communion with the Catholic church. These are non-negotiable issues. Black and white.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[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. [/quote]
No one is saying that anyone “wants” the embryo to die, but the simple fact of the matter is that they do, a lot. Your situation 2 is incorrect because the parents do not know that there are embryos that will be destroyed as it does not happen in all cases. Some have them preserved, some have the extra embryos injected later at a time when the woman is unlikely to become pregnant, and yes, some choose to have them destroyed. In both situation 1 and 2 the parents have knowledge that there is a risk involved.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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]
As I were. I’m not so stop thinking I am, I’m talking about a specific part of it. Got it?
You still admit they destroy the embryos, therefore they destroy human beings in order to create one. They knowingly and willfully destroy persons in the hopes of one being born. If I have seven kids and I like one the best and I send some of the others for possible adoption and the rest I kill…well, that is wrong. However, if I have seven kids and a few live to old age and some die of natural causes…that’s sad, but it’s not the purposeful killing of my children. To compare the two is ludicrous and absurd. [/quote]
Your examples do not work though because as you have stated you do not mourn the passing of every embryo because they are simply too fragile.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[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. [/quote]
No one is saying that anyone “wants” the embryo to die, but the simple fact of the matter is that they do, a lot. Your situation 2 is incorrect because the parents do not know that there are embryos that will be destroyed as it does not happen in all cases. Some have them preserved, some have the extra embryos injected later at a time when the woman is unlikely to become pregnant, and yes, some choose to have them destroyed. In both situation 1 and 2 the parents have knowledge that there is a risk involved.[/quote]
Oh is that so? Parents who choose to undergo IVF do not know that the process of IVF requires that multiple fertilized eggs be created exactly because many will necessarily die or be destroyed? They are not aware of this?
Let’s try this again. I will not change anything I’ve said before and I would appreciate it if you would leave it alone as well, and deal with the words I am actually using:
Multiple eggs are fertilized, and, thus, new human lives created, 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. Show me exactly which part is incorrect. Just saying that situation 2 is incorrect and then responding with a falsehood or fallaciously misstating what I wrote clearly, and then repeated for further clarity, because I knew you would do this sort of thing, is not going to cut it.
I’m still waiting for one more person, anyone, to chime in and offer you a word of support. There’s certainly no shortage of posters who will jump at the chance to tell us Catholic, conservative right-wing nut-jobs how far off our rockers we’ve fallen. Wonder where they’ve all gone?
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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]
As I were. I’m not so stop thinking I am, I’m talking about a specific part of it. Got it?
You still admit they destroy the embryos, therefore they destroy human beings in order to create one. They knowingly and willfully destroy persons in the hopes of one being born. If I have seven kids and I like one the best and I send some of the others for possible adoption and the rest I kill…well, that is wrong. However, if I have seven kids and a few live to old age and some die of natural causes…that’s sad, but it’s not the purposeful killing of my children. To compare the two is ludicrous and absurd. [/quote]
Your examples do not work though because as you have stated you do not mourn the passing of every embryo because they are simply too fragile. [/quote]
You should have worn your floaties before wading into this pool.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
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]
As I were. I’m not so stop thinking I am, I’m talking about a specific part of it. Got it?
You still admit they destroy the embryos, therefore they destroy human beings in order to create one. They knowingly and willfully destroy persons in the hopes of one being born. If I have seven kids and I like one the best and I send some of the others for possible adoption and the rest I kill…well, that is wrong. However, if I have seven kids and a few live to old age and some die of natural causes…that’s sad, but it’s not the purposeful killing of my children. To compare the two is ludicrous and absurd. [/quote]
Your examples do not work though because as you have stated you do not mourn the passing of every embryo because they are simply too fragile. [/quote]
When did I say I didn’t mourn every embryo that passes?
Where’d you go, Beef?
And where are all the “rational” thinkers who agree with your reasoning? Not even one?