[PUG] Artificial insemination is immoral

Jasmine85 said:
contradicts your claim that
Click to expand...

So it does.

Obviously the creator is good, so anything bad that happens to us is because of whatever sin we are tainted with and not the fault of the design or the designer. In other words, just because we don't understand how we have deviated form the grand design does not mean that the design is flawed.

And thanks for debating with me and not being one of those party poopers.
 
Satya said:
This is simple teleology taken to its logical conclusion. The penis was designed to go into the vagina. Any deviation from the grand design is not natural, and thus is abnormal, abhorrent, and sinful.

Anything that would dissociate the sex act from the procreative act is morally reprehensible. First you have a man masturbating to deliver a sample, which is very undignified and sinful since the hand is not a reproductive organ. Then you have the sample being injected into the woman by a doctor or the woman herself, which is very undignified and sinful since that is what the father's penis was designed to do.

If a woman cannot get pregnant without the help of artificial insemination, then clearly she has failed her job as a woman. Women were designed to have babies and if they can't accomplish that task through normal means, then they are failures and should be ashamed.

(Any takers?)
Click to expand...

lol

I prefer books when I'm bored.
 
But sin would have to be an integral part of the design also, otherwise the implementation would be imperfect.
 
Jasmine85 said:
But sin would have to be an integral part of the design also, otherwise the implementation would be imperfect.
Click to expand...

You could not possibly be suggesting that the creator made an error by making man capable of deviating from the grand design.
 
Assuming the design is perfect, and the creator designed in the concept of sin, gave people the capacity to be sinful, and then gave people the capacity to choose. People who are free to choose are essentially dice.

Are you saying that the dice are not rolling the way the creator intends for them to roll?
 
Invitro and all that is wrong because there are too many people already, and enough orphans to go around. Get over yourselves and accept the fact that you're barren.

Is that also controversial enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Jasmine85 said:
Assuming the design is perfect, and the creator designed in the concept of sin, gave people the capacity to be sinful, and then gave people the capacity to choose. People who are free to choose are essentially dice.

Are you saying that the dice are not rolling the way the creator intends for them to roll?
Click to expand...

Well obviously everything isn't predestined. The creator knows how everything is going to turn out, but simply chooses not to get involved and will allow each human to choose for themselves whether or not they will live as they were designed to live. It's like a watchmaker testing his goods. He'll make 6 billion watches and test them and the ones that function as they should shall be sold and the ones that don't function as they should will be discarded. In this case, the watches simply have the ability to choose to function as they were designed or not to do so. It isn't the watchmaker's fault if the watches choose incorrectly.

It sounds to me like you think that the creator granting humans the ability to choose was a design flaw. But how else would the creator remain good while sorting out the humans who are worthy from the ones that are not? Clearly the only way to do so is to allow humans to sort themselves out.
 
acd said:
Invitro and all that is wrong because there are too many people already, and enough orphans to go around. Get over yourselves and accept the fact that you're barren.

Is that also controversial enough?
Click to expand...

Not bad, but try this...

Adoption for those who have trouble getting pregnant is morally reprehensible because if the creator intended for those people to have children then they would be able to get pregnant. As such, only those couples who are capable of having children of their own, should be allowed to adopt children.
 
Satya said:
Not bad, but try this...

Adoption for those who have trouble getting pregnant is morally reprehensible because if the creator intended for those people to have children then they would be able to get pregnant. As such, only those couples who are capable of having children of their own, should be allowed to adopt children.
Click to expand...

By this logic anything you could have should come from out of you to include food and shelter. Also I dont think the PUG tag is a license for trolling.
 
I am gonna be honest, I don't even see how this is an argument. Any "argument" that would be based on some kind religious construct by it's moral teachings, isn't valid to me. This argument is one of those, I can only think of moral reasons behind this that would stem from religion. I don't debate on anything that states something is morally wrong because of a religious construct, nor do I understand why anyone would waste their time with it. It is a dead end argument in almost all cases for anything.

Think about this in a secular sense. Does preforming artificial insemination cause any kind of physical harm or social harm (outside of religion)? No it does not (I know there are loopholes, don't peg me on them, there are loopholes for eveything). Because it is not causing harm, and it can benefit families that want a child, there is nothing morally wrong with this.
 
uberrogo said:
By this logic anything you could have should come from out of you to include food and shelter.
Click to expand...

Obviously, those who aren't capable of building their own shelter or growing their own food deserve neither.

Also I dont think the PUG tag is a license for trolling.
Click to expand...

It isn't, but this thread has a topic and the discussion in the thread has been relevant to that topic. There has been no emotional response or disruption of normal on topic discussion, so it does not constitute as trolling. It is just a controversial discussion on teleology.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I am gonna be honest, I don't even see how this is an argument. Any "argument" that would be based on some kind religious construct by it's moral teachings, isn't valid to me. This argument is one of those, I can only think of moral reasons behind this that would stem from religion. I don't debate on anything that states something is morally wrong because of a religious construct, nor do I understand why anyone would waste their time with it. It is a dead end argument in almost all cases for anything.

Think about this in a secular sense. Does preforming artificial insemination cause any kind of physical harm or social harm (outside of religion)? No it does not (I know there are loopholes, don't peg me on them, there are loopholes for eveything). Because it is not causing harm, and it can benefit families that want a child, there is nothing morally wrong with this.
Click to expand...

This is all true. The point of such discussions aren't to win or lose, but to simply have fun, and to toy with a different brand of logic. There are people who honestly believe what I have been stating in this thread and understanding their point of view, as absurd as it might seem, is just a way to further an understanding of a different worldview.
 
Satya said:
Obviously, those who aren't capable of building their own shelter or growing their own food deserve neither..
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of that parable...
Long ago there lived an old woman who had a wish. She wished more than anything to see for herself the difference between heaven and hell. The monks in the temple agreed to grant her request. They put a blindfold around her eyes, and said, "First you shall see hell."

When the blindfold was removed, the old woman was standing at the entrance to a great dining hall. The hall was full of round tables, each piled high with the most delicious foods
Click to expand...
 
I'll give it a try:

artificial insemination is nothing more than man playing for God, trying to prove he and not "life" can decide over life and death

artificial insemination is a selfish act. Children come when they come, and when they don't come it is not ment to be. What is the difference between designing a baby and designing a car? Is it still about giving live to a new soul or is it more about satisfying your own needs?
 
Morgain said:
I'll give it a try:

artificial insemination is nothing more than man playing for God, trying to prove he and not "life" can decide over life and death

artificial insemination is a selfish act. Children come when they come, and when they don't come it is not ment to be. What is the difference between designing a baby and designing a car? Is it still about giving live to a new soul or is it more about satisfying your own needs?
Click to expand...

Nice!
 
Satya said:
Obviously, those who aren't capable of building their own shelter or growing their own food deserve neither.
Click to expand...

Satya, I'm surprised. I thought you were pretending to argue from an Orthodox Christianity point of view. But this sounds much more like Satanism to me. Clarify, please - what moral system are you attempting to represent in your argument here?
 
Satya said:
This is simple teleology taken to its logical conclusion. The penis was designed to go into the vagina. Any deviation from the grand design is not natural, and thus is abnormal, abhorrent, and sinful.

Anything that would dissociate the sex act from the procreative act is morally reprehensible. First you have a man masturbating to deliver a sample, which is very undignified and sinful since the hand is not a reproductive organ. Then you have the sample being injected into the woman by a doctor or the woman herself, which is very undignified and sinful since that is what the father's penis was designed to do.

If a woman cannot get pregnant without the help of artificial insemination, then clearly she has failed her job as a woman. Women were designed to have babies and if they can't accomplish that task through normal means, then they are failures and should be ashamed.

(Any takers?)
Click to expand...

since when is what the body is designed to do, the moral thing?? people take antibiotics to fight infection, is that immoral too?
i think your reasoning is way off (and if you intended it to spark an exciting debate, good job lol) artificial insemination isn't immoral, it just makes the sex act redundant - or it divides it in two parts, the ejaculation of the male, and the insemination of the female. if you're going to label it immoral, you have to define what immoral is. how can it be a sin to use what god has given us - a mind, to overcome what are essentially cultural limitations? and if neither the male or the female who are participating believe it is harmful or are unwilling to do it, I don't get how the general public (ie. you and me) can judge them as doing something wrong, ESPECIALLY since children and birthing are held in such high regard in general society when they are achieved through traditional means.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top