[PUG] Artificial insemination is immoral

Morgain said:
I've got an other one:

If God is against artificial insemination, how come that these man made children have a soul?
Click to expand...

I LIKE this. Wow I REALLY like this. I will be stealing this point and applying it to many different things in the future.
 
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...

I have only read a couple of replies so far but I'd thought I'd give my thoughts.
A woman's maternal instincts can be almost overpowering. You have so much love to give, so much to share that it might just break your heart to think of living a life without a child. Every woman would like it all to happen in a natural way but as time ticks on she looks at other possibilities. But she's driven, not by a sinful nature, but by instincts.
The main reason I don't think it's right is the thought of telling some child his father is 'Sperm Jar #248093'. I think that would be very tough to come to terms with in life.
 
2007-09-28+%4013-05-47.jpg

Straw man

A young Satya preparing the subject of his first thread.
 
sumone said:
I have only read a couple of replies so far but I'd thought I'd give my thoughts.
A woman's maternal instincts can be almost overpowering. You have so much love to give, so much to share that it might just break your heart to think of living a life without a child. Every woman would like it all to happen in a natural way but as time ticks on she looks at other possibilities. But she's driven, not by a sinful nature, but by instincts.
The main reason I don't think it's right is the thought of telling some child his father is 'Sperm Jar #248093'. I think that would be very tough to come to terms with in life.
Click to expand...

yes, that is probable the only reason why people go through all the misery of invitro fertilisation. I don't know how overwelming this motherly feeling can be, so I have no right to judge about this. Isn't there a way to apply those strong feelings of love and caring, like adopting, foster childeren, ...? There are so many childeren already living on the planet in need for love, why making one of our own blood by all means just to be able to give away that love?
 
How do we know what the penis was designed for? and how do we know the penis only has one purpose? maybe it has many purposes?
 
*walks in* *farts* my work is done here *walks out*
 
Catholic Doctrine is weird, though I would be wary without confirmation from other Catholic members as whether this is the Catholic Church's stance and reason for it being as such.

Witht that being said, their is some weird doctrine in the Catholic Church so ti's not beyond thought.


------------------------------------

Or possibly a press statement froma high ranking Catholic offical on the subject.
 
Quinlan said:
How do we know what the penis was designed for? and how do we know the penis only has one purpose? maybe it has many purposes?
Click to expand...

Because the penis fits so perfectly in the woman's vagina. You would not doubt that a key fits into a lock, so why doubt that a penis belongs in a vagina.
 
Barnabas said:
Catholic Doctrine is weird, though I would be wary without confirmation from other Catholic members as whether this is the Catholic Church's stance and reason for it being as such.

Witht that being said, their is some weird doctrine in the Catholic Church so ti's not beyond thought.


------------------------------------

Or possibly a press statement froma high ranking Catholic offical on the subject.
Click to expand...

How bout an actual search of the Catholic Catechism sections 2376 and 2377...

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2376

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."


2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.
Click to expand...
The version of the argument I presented is different, but it comes to the same conclusion as the Church.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I LIKE this. Wow I REALLY like this. I will be stealing this point and applying it to many different things in the future.
Click to expand...

You cant prove they have a soul or that anyone has a soul.
 
Satya said:
And yet the teleological example I used in the OP of this thread came from an actual Catholic interpreting Church doctrine.
Click to expand...

Satya said:
The version of the argument I presented is different, but it comes to the same conclusion as the Church.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should cite your OP of this thread to that particular individual, who happens to be Catholic.

And perhaps you should present the Church's own official words as its own official doctrine.

If you are interest in honest discussion, that is.


In fact I think you ought to be warned for this thread, just as I should if I were to start a thread with the title "The ideal of homosexual sex is child rape" on the basis that I have heard two homosexuals say this.
 
uberrogo said:
You cant prove they have a soul or that anyone has a soul.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I am going to use it for people who believe in such things. This obviously would have no relevence to someone who doesn't believe in such things.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Perhaps you should cite your OP of this thread to that particular individual, who happens to be Catholic.
Click to expand...

Ok, I might have tweaked the argument just a tad for fun.

And perhaps you should present the Church's own official words as its own official doctrine.
Click to expand...
As you wish...

http://forum.infjs.com/showpost.php?p=256037&postcount=51

In fact I think you ought to be warned for this thread, just as I should if I were to start a thread with the title "The ideal of homosexual sex is child rape" on the basis that I have heard two homosexuals say this.
Click to expand...

I think you are just sore that I made teleological reasoning look as absurd as it actually is.

This thread is about teleological reasoning of artificial insemination. I'm not sure how, "The ideal of homosexual sex is child rape" is comparable. I didn't even mention the Catholic individual until the third page of this thread. If you take issue with the OP, then simply debunk the logic I used. But feel free to report me, and that staff can decide. I'm just a member like anyone else even if I'm an admin and if I step outside the rules the same consequences apply to me. And frankly, it is the Catholic Churches official position that artificial insemination is immoral.

However, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the ideal of homosexual sex being child rape. I personally feel the ideal is a committed, monogamous relationship with another adult, but I'm open to hearing the rational. I'm all for a NAMBLA thread, but be willing to debate the issue.
 
Satya said:
The version of the argument I presented is different, but it comes to the same conclusion as the Church.
Click to expand...


haha..... O.K. good enough for me, though I wouldn't link that Church doctrine and the telelogical argument together, as the Church's doctrine is theological and has no real ground to stand on.

Seriously I want to know how they come to decisions on stuff like this. It's obviously not biblical but then again, when the Pope's word is law who needs scripture.
 
Barnabas said:
haha..... O.K. good enough for me, though I wouldn't link that Church doctrine and the telelogical argument together, as the Church's doctrine is theological and has no real ground to stand on.

Seriously I want to know how they come to decisions on stuff like this. It's obviously not biblical but then again, when the Pope's word is law who needs scripture.
Click to expand...

I think my argument is better than the Church's argument. In fact, I might send them a letter demanding that they adopt it.
 
Satya said:
I think my argument is better than the Church's argument. In fact, I might send them a letter demanding that they adopt it.
Click to expand...

The Church's doctrine as is can't be countered on theological grounds, by putting a telelogical spin on it they are open to being rebuked.
 
Barnabas said:
The Church's doctrine as is can't be countered on theological grounds, by putting a telelogical spin on it they are open to being rebuked.
Click to expand...

Ssssh, you will scare the fishes away.

Everyone knows that teleology is a perfectly logical way to understand the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top