[PUG] Artificial insemination is immoral

[Barnabas]

Ssssh, you will scare the fishes away.

Everyone knows that teleology is a perfectly logical way to understand the world.

If they used a telelogical argument, you might be validated here. But seeing as they use Theological argument, they can just call you heretic now go build a fire.


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

Am I arguing for something I don't accept? It must be late.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Huh..Since I saw the thread and first post made by Satya under this section I knew where this was going..I was planning to sit here with some popcorn and enjoy the show...but the movie is so similar to the one before..oh well..

At least you guys are having fun

Don't forget..

At all times you must love each other and hug each other



Aww Satya and Barnabas hugging would be incredibly cute..

 

[Barnabas]

The last time that we got close enough to hug Satya tried to "struggle on my ass"

Maybe a hands shake would be better.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Also, each time man masturbates, million new life forms die. And each month when woman ovulates, life is lost.

Nothing is designed for anything. I wish it was, then it wasn't going to be so inefficient in many aspects. My favorite example is some nerve in the giraffe's neck that goes back and forth the whole neck, before reaching his brain. Total loss of efficiency, that no designer could even imagine. But it happened, because it was useful for small animals, whose necks gradually evolved longer. There's no special predefined purpose in any physical feature.

 

[Quinlan]

Because the penis fits so perfectly in the woman's vagina.

Not always sometimes it's a poor fit.

You would not doubt that a key fits into a lock, so why doubt that a penis belongs in a vagina.

Sometimes I use a key as a knife to open packages, is that immoral?

 

[Satya]

Sometimes I use a key as a knife to open packages, is that immoral?

The key was made by man but man was made by the creator. Just becasue man does not use his own devises as they were meant to be used does not mean he is being immoral. However, if he uses himself as the creator had not designed him to be used, then it is immoral.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

you make no sense

This post is hella dumb. How is jerkin your tally wack a sin? Please expand on that... yeah you can't. And how is a woman a failure if she can't reproduce naturally. That's the type of dumb and invalid thought process that keeps people oppressed. So sorry women according to satya you can be the CEO of a company, live a fulfilling life, and make the world a better place but if you can't reproduce naturally YOURE A FAILURE. Because all you're good for is sex and reproduction.

There is some validity in saying that it's wrong to artificially inseminate because you are passing bad genes down. And your offspring are more likely to have the same problems, thus causing them to live unhappier lives. But all this "its a sin to jerk your wanker" and "hasn't she failed as a woman if she can't reproduce" makes you sound like one of those christian people who live on a ranch and wear all the same clothes.

p.s. I sin 3-4 times a week because it reduces my chance of developing prostate cancer by 70%. Also its pretty fun and it keeps my endurance up.

 

[Barnabas]

somebody jumped head long into a discusion a little to soon

 

[Faye]

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.

Like virtually everything in our society in some regard? The amount of antibiotics used on livestock in your common factory farm isn't exactly natural.

 

[Kavalan]

This post is hella dumb. How is jerkin your tally wack a sin? Please expand on that... yeah you can't. And how is a woman a failure if she can't reproduce naturally. That's the type of dumb and invalid thought process that keeps people oppressed. So sorry women according to satya you can be the CEO of a company, live a fulfilling life, and make the world a better place but if you can't reproduce naturally YOURE A FAILURE. Because all you're good for is sex and reproduction.

There is some validity in saying that it's wrong to artificially inseminate because you are passing bad genes down. And your offspring are more likely to have the same problems, thus causing them to live unhappier lives. But all this "its a sin to jerk your wanker" and "hasn't she failed as a woman if she can't reproduce" makes you sound like one of those christian people who live on a ranch and wear all the same clothes.

p.s. I sin 3-4 times a week because it reduces my chance of developing prostate cancer by 70%. Also its pretty fun and it keeps my endurance up.

nice vigor but if you go back and look at more of satya's post this thread will make sense.

 

[acd]

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.

I didn't really read the rest of this thread. But that argument is nonsensical to me. Why should only those who are able to bear children be able to adopt when they can have their own babies? Is it not a sin of omission to refuse to be fruitful and multiply your own stock? Bascially, anyone who is not in the Quiverful movement is going down to hell.


How can anyone argue what God intended, when the realities don't really show that God has anything to do with conception or child birth anyway.

I'm going on a lil tangent here but:

And if the creator intended for strictly male/female human beings then what's with all the babys born with mutations of both gentalia (functioning or not).

Is it immoral to choose which ones are to be male and which are to be female? and then surgically make it so?


Anyway. It takes more than biology to be capable of rearing children. And biology is not in God's favor anyway.

 

[Quinlan]

The key was made by man but man was made by the creator. Just becasue man does not use his own devises as they were meant to be used does not mean he is being immoral. However, if he uses himself as the creator had not designed him to be used, then it is immoral.

But maybe it was designed with multiple purposes? Maybe the penis was designed as nature's swiss army knife?

 

[Satya]

This post is hella dumb. How is jerkin your tally wack a sin? Please expand on that... yeah you can't. And how is a woman a failure if she can't reproduce naturally. That's the type of dumb and invalid thought process that keeps people oppressed. So sorry women according to satya you can be the CEO of a company, live a fulfilling life, and make the world a better place but if you can't reproduce naturally YOURE A FAILURE. Because all you're good for is sex and reproduction.

There is some validity in saying that it's wrong to artificially inseminate because you are passing bad genes down. And your offspring are more likely to have the same problems, thus causing them to live unhappier lives. But all this "its a sin to jerk your wanker" and "hasn't she failed as a woman if she can't reproduce" makes you sound like one of those christian people who live on a ranch and wear all the same clothes.

p.s. I sin 3-4 times a week because it reduces my chance of developing prostate cancer by 70%. Also its pretty fun and it keeps my endurance up.

It sounds like you have a problem with teleology.

I'll go through the logic with ya.

-It is man's duty to live in accordance with the creator's design.
-If man deviates from that design then he is sinning.
-The man's penis and the woman's vagina were clearly designed for the purpose of procreation because they fit together and lead to the creation of new human life.
-Therefore any deviation from that purpose is a sin.

Masturbation, oral sex, artificial insemination, etc. are all activities that deviate from the design by dissociating the sexual act from the procreative act. Hence they are all sin.

-Women were designed to have babies.
-Women who can't have babies can't fulfill that purpose.
-Therefore those women are failures.

Isn't teleological reasoning impeccable?

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

I hope you read this because I'm really curious.

Do you truly believe a woman is a failure if she cannot reproduce naturally? Or are you just intrigued by the logistics?? (This is what i'm curious about)

But for the hell of it, your statements are susceptible to a lot of counter arguments. For example I will mirror your argument;

-It is man's duty to live in accordance with the creator's design.
-If man deviates from that design then he is sinning.
-The man's penis and the woman's vagina were clearly designed for the purpose of pleasure because dopamine is released during the stimulation of nerve endings in the penis and vagina. Dopamine released in the brain causes pleasure so clearly the penis and vagina were designed for pleasure.
-Therefore any deviation from that purpose (the purpose of pleasure) is a sin.

So... according to my logistics masturbation is virtually never a sin since the purpose of masturbation is pleasure.

And... a sexual act which is also a procreative act can be a sin if the woman completes conception without experiencing pleasure (pregnancy caused by rape is an example).

**The last three bullets you wrote had nothing to do with your initial hypothesis so I won't even humor them.

God I can't believe I swooped so low and did this. At least i'm high on vicodin right now have an excuse. (recent surgery)

The point I just made had zero truth to it. And neither do any of yours.

 

[Barnabas]

I hope you read this because I'm really curious.

Do you truly believe a woman is a failure if she cannot reproduce naturally? Or are you just intrigued by the logistics?? (This is what i'm curious about)

But for the hell of it, your statements are susceptible to a lot of counter arguments. For example I will mirror your argument;

-It is man's duty to live in accordance with the creator's design.
-If man deviates from that design then he is sinning.
-The man's penis and the woman's vagina were clearly designed for the purpose of pleasure because dopamine is released during the stimulation of nerve endings in the penis and vagina. Dopamine released in the brain causes pleasure so clearly the penis and vagina were designed for pleasure.
-Therefore any deviation from that purpose (the purpose of pleasure) is a sin.

It is possible for a woman to complete conception without experiencing pleasure (pregnancy caused by rape is an example).

So... Masturbation according to my logistics is not a sin. But vaginal intercourse can be if there is no pleasure experienced for the male or female (for example rape).

The last three bullets have nothing to do with your initial hypothesis so I won't even humor them. Its like you just made three statements and tried to act all smart afterward.

But do you get my point?? You're doing what INFJ's have a tendancy to do. Think about things so much that it steers you away from what is obvious. The male and female genitalia are made for pleasure, reproduction, and urination. You can't prove they are made for only one.

I smell dooky?!?

Satya, he's silly. I can't understand why he thinks women are only for babies.

He's not very good at the smart thing(but don't let him know I said that) either, so just give him some space he's doing his best ok.

 

[Naxx]

Reading through this thread, it appears there is an actual taker. It also appears that he has taken pretty hard.

Actually further reading shows there are actually multiple takers; I've gravely been mistaken.

Under further extended analysis... testicle, penis and things of the such.. has gravely been mistaken.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

thanks bro. I'm just stuck on vicodin trying to perfect my counter agrument. I'm taking a class on validity right now and I have a debate next week so this is good practice. I shouldn't even mess with this guy.

 

[Satya]

I hope you read this because I'm really curious.

Do you truly believe a woman is a failure if she cannot reproduce naturally? Or are you just intrigued by the logistics?? (This is what i'm curious about)

But for the hell of it, your statements are susceptible to a lot of counter arguments. For example I will mirror your argument;

-It is man's duty to live in accordance with the creator's design.
-If man deviates from that design then he is sinning.
-The man's penis and the woman's vagina were clearly designed for the purpose of pleasure because dopamine is released during the stimulation of nerve endings in the penis and vagina. Dopamine released in the brain causes pleasure so clearly the penis and vagina were designed for pleasure.
-Therefore any deviation from that purpose (the purpose of pleasure) is a sin.

So... according to my logistics masturbation is virtually never a sin since the purpose of masturbation is pleasure.

And... a sexual act which is also a procreative act can be a sin if the woman completes conception without experiencing pleasure (pregnancy caused by rape is an example).

**The last three bullets you wrote had nothing to do with your initial hypothesis so I won't even humor them.

God I can't believe I swooped so low and did this. At least i'm high on vicodin right now have an excuse. (recent surgery)

The point I just made had zero truth to it. And neither do any of yours.

Well done. Not bad for someone on painkillers.

 

[Satya]

Satya, he's silly. I can't understand why he thinks women are only for babies.

He's not very good at the smart thing(but don't let him know I said that) either, so just give him some space he's doing his best ok.

Oh rawlly?

 

[Jack]

Nothing is designed for anything. I wish it was, then it wasn't going to be so inefficient in many aspects. My favorite example is some nerve in the giraffe's neck that goes back and forth the whole neck, before reaching his brain. Total loss of efficiency, that no designer could even imagine. But it happened, because it was useful for small animals, whose necks gradually evolved longer. There's no special predefined purpose in any physical feature.

Teleology needn't be direct design. Say there was an indirect process that made a certain telos an inevitability. Not the designer's fault, if the designer left the future open, its just how things played out.