Why not?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Because you haven't made a meaningful distinction between two acts the both willfully cause incidental death within the same time period.

---

Yeah I have. The distinction is that you're not willfully causing the death. You don't cause a death at all by naturally conceiving children. The cause will be some malady or event not in your control, but is completely separate from conception.

If you can name me one IVF payment in history that has been forced upon someone, I'll pay you 10x that.

One condition... you extend me the same courtesy with Catholicism. I'll waive the multiplier.

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Because you haven't made a meaningful distinction between two acts the both willfully cause incidental death within the same time period.

---

Yeah I have. The distinction is that you're not willfully causing the death. You don't cause a death at all by naturally conceiving children. The cause will be some malady or event not in your control, but is completely separate from conception.

---

The act of conception has a failure rate. IVF has a failure rate. Neither are done to harm. Both willfully accept a near guarantee of immediate harm.

Because it's violative of the Natural Law.

According to what precise definition of natural law.

This ultimately seems to boil down to your opinion. And you will act surprised at how low the support for this will end up in your own part and church.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ugh, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm granting the following premise:

"Killing any innocent is always wrong"

And asking you to apply that consistently to the actions of attempting to impregnate a woman via IVF and via natural birth.

I'm not even getting to the point of arguing the premise yet. Not that it would surprise me to see many of you in the Israel threads gladly cheering bombs with collateral damage as a net good.

---

This is mind blowing. This has to be trolling.

1. Natural sex may lead to an embryo that doesn't implant/miscarries. Natural death with no intent.

2. IVF creates embryos, never implants them, and tosses them in the trash. Not a natural death and done with intent.

How can you not see this?

---

So you are good with IVF as long as they attempt implantation then…

---

Aha, you are learning! The answer is still no but differing in reason; this would move the argument from secular to the religious. Anyone who is Catholic would tell you that there is a natural design towards reproduction that takes into account both the emotional and biological and "playing God" by using a test tube to shortcut the natural processes is gravely immoral.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I've not said anything to remotely support that. Good grief.

I yes I've learned so much.

We've advanced the argument from

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

All the way to

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

Aggrad08 said:

---

I yes I've learned so much.

We've advanced the argument from

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

All the way to

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

---

I don't believe that the idea that murdering innocent people is bad is beholden to only those with my religious views.

However, I can see why the idea that a baby is a product of love from the martial embrace of a husband and a wife rather than a product to be paid for and created in a test tube ventures into the realm of religion.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I've not said anything to remotely support that. Good grief.

---

Was that not the implication of the original response asking if there are any churches that don't ask for money? What else would he be implying with that?

The idea that murdering innocents is bad is not unique. That it's "Always bad to kill ANY innocents for ANY reason under ANY circumstances" absolutely is peculiar.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

If you can name me one IVF payment in history that has been forced upon someone, I'll pay you 10x that.

One condition... you extend me the same courtesy with Catholicism. I'll waive the multiplier.

---

A donation and a payment for a service are a difference in kind. That's why we know the IVF people aren't doing it for love, as was stated. You don't have to play 10 grand for a service if the people providing the service are doing it all out of love.

Aggrad08 said:

---

According to what precise definition of natural law.

This ultimately seems to boil down to your opinion. And you will act surprised at how low the support for this will end up in your own part and church.

---

the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law". That's Thomas Aquinas' definition.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ugh, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm granting the following premise:

"Killing any innocent is always wrong"

And asking you to apply that consistently to the actions of attempting to impregnate a woman via IVF and via natural birth.

I'm not even getting to the point of arguing the premise yet. Not that it would surprise me to see many of you in the Israel threads gladly cheering bombs with collateral damage as a net good.

---

This is mind blowing. This has to be trolling.

1. Natural sex may lead to an embryo that doesn't implant/miscarries. Natural death with no intent.

2. IVF creates embryos, never implants them, and tosses them in the trash. Not a natural death and done with intent.

How can you not see this?

---

So you are good with IVF as long as they attempt implantation then…

---

I personally still have an issue with it. I think it commodifies children. But I would not legally oppose IVF as long as ALL embryos (regardless of potential disability) were implanted on a good faith attempt to birth them. No implantation without the same hormones. No implant then plan B or abortion. Legally, every life is protected and no murder is done.

Why this would create backlash is because it would make an expensive procedure even more expensive. It wouldn't be convenient. They could do this today if they wanted, but it's harder to sell, so they don't.

Do you really want to talk about how (our) Christian heritage has been plagued by those wishing to profit off of the faith?

Aggrad08 said:

---

The idea that murdering innocents is bad is not unique. That it's "Always bad to kill ANY innocents for ANY reason under ANY circumstances" absolutely is peculiar.

---

If something is bad, it's bad. We do mental gymnastics to try and make ourselves unlearn these simple truths, this is the role of propaganda, but they don't change the issue at hand.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I yes I've learned so much.

We've advanced the argument from

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

All the way to

"I'm imposing my own personal religious views"

---

Don't worry, I don't think you've learned anything.

Yes like we learned theocracies are bad…

At the end of the day let's call this what it is. Your insistence on legislating your own personal moral views on an issue where the population at large, likely even your own church members hold a wide variety of views.

I learned you never had anything to offer and will continue to make personal attacks due to personal insecurities rather than simply trying to contribute.

Aggrad08 said:

---

According to what precise definition of natural law.

This ultimately seems to boil down to your opinion. And you will act surprised at how low the support for this will end up in your own part and church.

---

Your utilitarianism is showing. I don't care what the support is for natural law. I know it exists and I understand it, unlike most, sadly.

Also, just so you know, the church has an official position on IVF and it ain't good.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I learned you never had anything to offer and will continue to make personal attacks due to personal insecurities rather than simply trying to contribute.

---

Most of my contributions were before you joined the thread. It's not my fault you didn't read the thread you commented on.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yes like we learned theocracies are bad…

At the end of the day let's call this what it is. Your insistence on legislating your own personal moral views on an issue where the population at large, likely even your own church members hold a wide variety of views.

---

I think if you went to my church you would be amazed at the homogeneity of our beliefs. I would like to add that I can in no way claim credit for my moral views, they are part and parcel of my religion and the product of thousands of years of study.

The church has an official position on condoms and other birth controls.

Polls have been done of the laity…and they aren't good.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The church has an official position on condoms and other birth controls.

Polls have been grown of the laity…and they aren't good.

---

Could not care less.

Also you went from arguing morality to now polls and public support. That's never a good sign.

Let's just do Catholic & IVF officially stated payments then. It won't count as a payment unless explicitly stated as such. Donations can be tossed out entirely.

(You're going to need the GDP of a small country to square up)

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Let's just do Catholic & IVF officially stated payments then. It won't count as a payment unless explicitly stated as such. Donations can be tossed out entirely.

(You're going to need the GDP of a small country to square up)

---

I have no idea what you're saying

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your previous post by telling me about official stances of your church when your own church can't convince its own on similar subjects

Aggrad08 said:

---

The church has an official position on condoms and other birth controls.

Polls have been done of the laity…and they aren't good.

---

Let me show you my poll (no pun intended)

Aggrad08 said:

---

The church has an official position on condoms and other birth controls.

Polls have been done of the laity…and they aren't good.

---

Heterodoxy is not evidence for the subjectivism of morality.

Maybe you should be pope

It really is. It hold necessarily if you want to argue that orthodoxy is evidence of objectivity.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It really is. It hold necessarily if you want to argue that orthodoxy is evidence of objectivity.

---

I'm not even sure you know what words mean based on this conversation…

you said ivf was payment for services vs. church donations being discretionary.

i said that seems irrelevant.

you said no.

i said okay let's compare 'pay for something in return' payments ivf vs. catholics and suggest you bring your checkbook.

you say, i dont understand.

i say, open a history book

Aggrad08 said:

---

It really is. It hold necessarily if you want to argue that orthodoxy is evidence of objectivity.

---

Orthodoxy is right teaching about the faith. What you're talking about is pervasive deviation from orthodoxy. Serviam's visual shows what we all know. People who practice the faith believe the teachings of the Church, and people who don't, don't. That should not be surprising.