Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2013, 11:20 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 08:01 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  A sperm is just half and is nothing.

So then an egg is only half and therefore nothing. We can continue the math logically, but i think you know where we'd end up. The only way to reach sacredness is to introduce god. The only way to introduce god is illogically. Classically and mathematically illogical.

It's no wonder you have to meditate yourself into oblivion in order to commune with him.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 07:13 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 12:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Nothing is sacred.

It seems to me you are looking for justification to use force (physical violence) against pregnant women. You don't like it when a pregnant woman has an abortion, you know that the abortion does not impact you at all, so you label the fetus life as sacred, then deem it your own responsibility to protect that which is sacred.
I find this reasoning, with regards to justification of government use of physical violence against other society members, to be highly dangerous. Government forcing some people's beliefs on others, oppressing and physically assaulting people to conform.

Hmmm....

It doesn't impact me, but I have compassion for the living, and I consider a fetus to be alive, so that's why I'm legislating that. As for the woman's choice, I find that morally irrelevant, seeing as it may be that she is the mother, the baby is not her. I am not the government, I am a (terrible) philosopher if anything. Finding solutions to these problems is the government's job, one that is not solved by a killing solution. What you described in that last sentence is the thing I hate about governments, with echoes of my ancestors in the USR in my mind. As for the nothing is sacred garbage, that's just closed-minded thinking at work. Open your eyes and look at the stars of the goddamn sky, and tell me nothing's sacred. What kind of freethinker are you if you believe that philosophy? You come off as a hypocritical conformist when you bleat out mouth-shit like that, and I've seen your posts and know that at least you ca do a bit better than that. So the nothing is sacred argument is an insult to reality, no respect for that argument here.

Did that answer your questions?

So I'm not sure if this has already been covered but if this is your position, then god is the most prolific abortionist of all time. He has to be responsible for our biology, yes?

Then you understand that 80% of all fertilized eggs (blastocyst) don't attach, the ones that do attach to the uterus, 50% of all attached end up aborting within 24-48 hours. If the zygote makes it past this hurtle, it now has a 25% chance of miscarriage during the first trimester. That's a fetus with a heartbeat. If it makes it past te first trimester, and in this day in age, it still has a small chance of dying in utero. Thanks to science, the infant mortality rate is drastically reduced. But remember that the last part was almost 30% of all fetuses died in utero or during childbirth.

My son died in utero jus under the 8th month. Did you know he was not given a birth certificate because he was never alive?

Now this is just *my* experience and it's not intended to trivialize anyone else's experience with this. I was upset when this happened and I grieved, but not for the reason you would think. I grieved not for my actual son, but at the loss that I would not be having a son at this time. I lost the idea of a baby, not the actual baby (it was never a person).

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
11-11-2013, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 08:37 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
As a PS, I don't think its prudent to apply a zero tolerance Policy to this issue.

First, the majority of women who make this decision do not come to it lightly. They don't use it as a form of birth control. There is a variety of reasons that one might make this decision and until you are in that position, it's my opinion that you STFU. With so many impoverished children, it's clear that those who are pro-life are in fact only pro-birth.

Secondly, we don't live in a theocracy in this country. If you believed that eating pig was an abomination, would you also be able to take bacon from me? Out of my cold dead fingers, I will say. I love bacon.

Thirdly, human production is far too complicated to be so black and white. I'm gonna assume that you know squat about IVF. During egg harvest, sometimes 2 eggs get extracted, sometimes 15. It all depends on how a particular ovary responds to the medication. It's not an exact science. Now, all those eggs are fertilized. My hubby and I are going through this process. We are testing each embryo for abnormalities and genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis. Any embryos with CF will not be implanted and be deemed medical waste. Under your objection, not only would that embryo be implanted without my consent, but ALL 15 embryos - if viable - would also have to be implanted. That would almost surely consign me to death and end any possiblity for those lives of the unborn. How is THAT moral?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
11-11-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(11-11-2013 07:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Thirdly, human production is far too complicated to be so black and white. I'm gonna assume that you know squat about IVF. During egg harvest, sometimes 2 eggs get extracted, sometimes 15. It all depends on how a particular ovary responds to the medication. It's not an exact science. Now, all those eggs are fertilized. My hubby and I are going through this process. We are testing each embryo for abnormalities and genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis. Any embryos with CF will not be implanted and be deemed medical waste. Under your objection, not only would that embryo be implanted without my consent, but ALL 15 embryos - if viable - would also have to be implanted. That would almost surely consign me to death and end any possiblity for those lives of the unborn. How is THAT moral?

I have a cousin who did this and ended up with sextuplits. They opted not to abort any of them because Christianity, and ended up with all six living, but two of which are very much special-needs (I don't know the specifics of what is wrong). I agree. IVF is quite complicated and nuanced. Taking a black-and-white approach on it is likely to cause a lot of problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(11-11-2013 02:12 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I have a cousin who did this and ended up with sextuplits. They opted not to abort any of them because Christianity, and ended up with all six living, but two of which are very much special-needs (I don't know the specifics of what is wrong). I agree. IVF is quite complicated and nuanced. Taking a black-and-white approach on it is likely to cause a lot of problems.
Six, with two special needs. What a handful. I don't know how anyone could cope.

With regards to Catholicism, I have been told that IVF is immoral, not because of the destruction of fertilised eggs but because they think babies should only be a result of "natural" sex.
It's pedantic and must cause much stress to Catholic couple's struggling to conceive. I struggle to understand why Catholicism is so popular.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(11-11-2013 03:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 02:12 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I have a cousin who did this and ended up with sextuplits. They opted not to abort any of them because Christianity, and ended up with all six living, but two of which are very much special-needs (I don't know the specifics of what is wrong). I agree. IVF is quite complicated and nuanced. Taking a black-and-white approach on it is likely to cause a lot of problems.
Six, with two special needs. What a handful. I don't know how anyone could cope.

With regards to Catholicism, I have been told that IVF is immoral, not because of the destruction of fertilised eggs but because they think babies should only be a result of "natural" sex.
It's pedantic and must cause much stress to Catholic couple's struggling to conceive. I struggle to understand why Catholicism is so popular.

This is because most Catholics don't listen to the church. They do what they want and just ignore the edicts they don't approve of.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 04:20 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
I don't understand *why* it's against the church. I read why, but I don't understand.

Part of it was because the sperm is collected through masterbation. But the purpose of that being against the church is the spilling of seed. In this instance, it's not spilled if it's actually going to be seeking an egg (just in a Petri dish). So it's not spilled seed at all. In fact, it's ensuring fertilization whereas it couldn't occur otherwise. Isn't this a good thing?

They also ban the donation of egg/sperm to achieve pregnancy. I don't understand *why* this is a problem. Who cares if it's genetically not theirs. Does the church oppose adoption too? No? Then what's the problem?

The other issue is that seems to be a problem is the freezing of eggs to implant in the future. Why is this a problem?

Is it messing with nature? If that's the case, the RCC should be against chemo treatment for cancer patients, eye glasses, surgery, or anything that otherwise interferes with nature and thus, god's will.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 04:57 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(11-11-2013 04:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I don't understand *why* it's against the church. I read why, but I don't understand.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/...oFY7nfwi3Y
Quote:Catholic teaching prohibits in vitro fertilization, maintaining that a child has the right to be conceived in the marital embrace of his parents. Human sexuality has two components, the unitive and procreative; IVF separates these components and makes the procreative its only goal. Pope Paul VI said that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”
It's all idealistic hogwash with no evidential/measurable grounding.
But there are many people whom believe the Church is divinely guided and thus they worry about non conformance to the teachings.
Even sacraments such as baptism and eucharist, gives them much grief, worrying about whether it is performed correctly or not, the "dangers" of being baptised twice (because they don't know if they were baptised as a baby), or if the eucharist host is handled correctly etc. Because it is unvarifiable, it must do one's head in not being able to know if these things are working or not. Some people take it very seriously.
I do empathise greatly for infertile couples and gay people whom suffer under the beliefs set upon them by the church. But it seems that for some people "suffering" equates to positive feedback for their journey of redemption and servitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 09:55 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 08:01 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  One set of zygotes plus another makes a full set of DNA, making a unique person code that produces a dude.

A sperm is just half and is nothing.

You haven't answered why this is a sacred event. Your terminology is off, but you are simply stating the biological event of fertilization. All of us here can agree that when sperm and egg meet, and the egg is fertilized, then that zygote has a unique set of DNA.

So why is this a 'sacred' event? Seems just like a basic, run of the mill outcome of sex.

While the event is, to me, important, I don't think it's sacred, but its result is sacred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 05:38 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 10:15 PM)kim Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for the nothing is sacred garbage, that's just closed-minded thinking at work. Open your eyes and look at the stars of the goddamn sky, and tell me nothing's sacred. What kind of freethinker are you if you believe that philosophy? You come off as a hypocritical conformist when you bleat out mouth-shit like that, and I've seen your posts and know that at least you ca do a bit better than that. So the nothing is sacred argument is an insult to reality, no respect for that argument here.

sacred |ˈsākrid|
adjective
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration : sacred rites | the site at Eleusis is sacred to Demeter.
See note at divine .
religious rather than secular : sacred music.
• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion : a sacred Hindu text.
regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual : an animal sacred to Mexican culture.
sacrosanct : to a police officer nothing is sacred.
___________________________

Perhaps you are confused about your use of the word sacred and your understanding of it's meaning.

Seems we're using different definitions, I agree.

I define sacred as important, beautiful, harmless, innocent, and altogether deserving respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: