Sure, put it on a t-shirt and wear it to your kids high school volleyball game. Good grief what a weird place the minds of some people are. It's loving parents wanting to have a family for goodness sake. I can't reconcile the mindset, it's truly ridiculous.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

Oh my goodness. So facts aren't real. And you get to decide what's real. The mental gymnastics...

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Sure, put it on a t-shirt and wear it to your kids high school volleyball game. Good grief what a weird place the minds of some people are. It's loving parents wanting to have a family for goodness sake. I can't reconcile the mindset, it's truly ridiculous.

---

I've already acknowledged that it's loving parents who want to have a family. And that the desire to have a family is a good and natural one. That doesn't make it okay.

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

Oh my goodness. So facts aren't real. And you get to decide what's real. The mental gymnastics...

---

I'm just imposing your standard for what makes a statement fact. What part of what I said do you disagree with?

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

My standard for what makes something a fact is that we can prove it. You're response was a long way to say we don't need proof to determine facts. At no point did you apply my standard. You contradicted it. You're trolling right now.

jwoodmd said:

---

shack009 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

At one point it was moral to stone people.

At one point it was moral to own another person.

At one point it was moral to do all kinds of things that are now considered terrible and immoral.

---

People *considered* those things moral. It didn't mean they actually were.

---

Replying to this so you can't edit that away. You're toast after that response.

---

So is the whole IVF argument.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

Oh my goodness. So facts aren't real. And you get to decide what's real. The mental gymnastics...

---

With your relative morality perspective, you're the one arguing those things. I just don't think you're smart enough to realize what he's doing to your argument.

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

---

Absolutely trolling.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

This is laughable. Yes he did! What on EARTH are you suggesting?!

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

What is it called when someone accepts something as true without proof?

An assumption is a proper term in science for something we accept as true without proof. It is a standard practice in scientific studies to list out all of your experimental assumptions at the beginning of the research phase before the experimental hypothesis is formed or the experiment is performed.

In your case it could be faith but it isn't fact or truth.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

---

Again I don't think you know what you're talking about. He absolutely called Jewish law into question and wholeheartedly changed it along with his apostles.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

---

Absolutely trolling.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

Oh my goodness. So facts aren't real. And you get to decide what's real. The mental gymnastics...

---

With your relative morality perspective, you're the one arguing those things. I just don't think you're smart enough to realize what he's doing to your argument.

---

Morals aren't factual. Morals are by definition "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." It's a personal viewpoint.

I'm not arguing facts cannot be proven. I'm arguing morality is not absolute. Morality is not consistent from person to person.

Some people who serve on a Jury have a moral objection to a law. They might refuse to convict someone based on that moral objection.

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

What is it called when someone accepts something as true without proof?

An assumption is a proper term in science for something we accept as true without proof. It is a standard practice in scientific studies to list out all of your experimental assumptions at the beginning of the research phase before the experimental hypothesis is formed or the experiment is performed.

In your case it could be faith but it isn't fact or truth.

---

Again, if you can't empirically prove that your sense experiences are reliable, then you can't DO the physical sciences. If you're a radical empiricist, it will just result in solipcism or nihilism. Which of those are you?

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

What is it called when someone accepts something as true without proof?

An assumption is a proper term in science for something we accept as true without proof. It is a standard practice in scientific studies to list out all of your experimental assumptions at the beginning of the research phase before the experimental hypothesis is formed or the experiment is performed.

In your case it could be faith but it isn't fact or truth.

---

Again, if you can't empirically prove that your sense experiences are reliable, then you can't DO the physical sciences. If you're a radical empiricist, it will just result in solipcism or nihilism. Which of those are you?

---

Chat GPT, Chat GPT…

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

---

Again I don't think you know what you're talking about. He absolutely called Jewish law into question and wholeheartedly changed it along with his apostles.

---

Please give examples of how Jesus tried to change laws to restrict the decisions of people in society. I'll wait.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

---

Again I don't think you know what you're talking about. He absolutely called Jewish law into question and wholeheartedly changed it along with his apostles.

---

Please give examples of how Jesus tried to change laws to restrict the decisions of people in society. I'll wait.

---

Mosaic laws on divorce.

Actually, he didn't. He expressed that there were consequences for acting immorally with intent and allowing it to poison one's soul and their future intentions, but he also presented a pretty solid pathway to absolution and forgiveness for one's sins. In fact, there are several situations in which those around Jesus ridiculed him for expressing a willingness to look beyond the sins of those around him because he could see beyond them where they could not.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

---

Again I don't think you know what you're talking about. He absolutely called Jewish law into question and wholeheartedly changed it along with his apostles.

---

Please give examples of how Jesus tried to change laws to restrict the decisions of people in society. I'll wait.

---

Mosaic laws on divorce.

---

He preached it was wrong and should be more restricted. But did he make an active effort to change the law of the land?

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

How can people claim morality isn't subject to opinion? Morality is 100% relative. There are entirely different approaches to morality and ethics. Something being good or bad is by definition an opinion.

Facts require proof. You cannot prove something as good or evil. Religious text is not a source of proof. If it is, faith does not exist.

---

Liking or disliking something is opinion. We aren't talking about wether you think pineapple is good on pizza or not.

---

Something you can prove is a fact. You cant prove if something is good or evil. It's an opinion. Morality is relative to the person considering the goodness or evilness of the subject.

---

That's not true either. As a matter of fact, we can't prove anything empirically without first granting to ourselves that our sense experiences are reliable, which itself you can't prove empirically. So, facts don't exist? It turns out you can know things to be true even if they're unprovable.

---

What is it called when someone accepts something as true without proof?

An assumption is a proper term in science for something we accept as true without proof. It is a standard practice in scientific studies to list out all of your experimental assumptions at the beginning of the research phase before the experimental hypothesis is formed or the experiment is performed.

In your case it could be faith but it isn't fact or truth.

---

Again, if you can't empirically prove that your sense experiences are reliable, then you can't DO the physical sciences. If you're a radical empiricist, it will just result in solipcism or nihilism. Which of those are you?

---

Chat GPT, Chat GPT…

---

I guess this is what people do on the Internet now once they've lost the argument.

You're argument has zero rationality behind it.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Why do some Christians think it's okay to exert their definition of morality on those who do not believe the same? Christ didn't act that way.

---

We don't. We believe that moral precepts don't come from within us. They're external to us. Are you saying Jesus didn't admonish people? Because he did, and so did the apostles.

---

Jesus didn't try to change laws to restrict how people make decisions.

---

Again I don't think you know what you're talking about. He absolutely called Jewish law into question and wholeheartedly changed it along with his apostles.

---

Please give examples of how Jesus tried to change laws to restrict the decisions of people in society. I'll wait.

---

Mosaic laws on divorce.

---

He preached it was wrong and should be more restricted. But did he make an active effort to change the law of the land?

---

He changed it. It was not permitted. God regulated it because of the hardness of Man's heart, but it was not that way from the beginning.

AggieDub14 said:

---

You're argument has zero rationality behind it.

---

Which part is confusing you?

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

---

Your logic is really really bad. I never even came close to claiming all medical intervention is moral and I wouldn't call what Megele did medical procedures. Scientific experiments maybe but I think we would both agree that the guy was sick.

austagg99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

---

Your logic is really really bad. I never even came close to claiming all medical intervention is moral and I wouldn't call what Megele did medical procedures. Scientific experiments maybe but I think we would both agree that the guy was sick.

---

What's the logic behind your comparison to believing IVF is an intrinsic evil, to believing all medical intervention is bad? Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

If you believe that IVF can't be done morally then you are just as much of a nutter as someone who lets their kid die from appendicitis because they believe all medical procedures are the devil's work.

---

Because all medical intervention is moral as long as what? The person who does it wears a lab coat while they're doing it? Was Dr. Mengele's work was 'a okay' just because he's a doctor or something?

---

Your logic is really really bad. I never even came close to claiming all medical intervention is moral and I wouldn't call what Megele did medical procedures. Scientific experiments maybe but I think we would both agree that the guy was sick.

---

What's the logic behind your comparison to believing IVF is an intrinsic evil, to believing all medical intervention is bad? Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

---

Not really sure I understand your question but I'll try to clarify my original statement. iVF can be done in a way that is life affirming and helps humans thrive where they otherwise wouldn't. If you oppose it because you think a medical procedure is altering some divine plan then you are no better than a nutter that would let their kid die from appendicitis because the doctor is interfering with a divine plan.

Literally the whole thing. From the onset it's pretty clear that you've just been responding from post to post without really thinking about what anyone is saying to you. It's the textbook definition of bigotry.

We are all okay if you personally decide it's wrong. We're all okay if you work to save potentially discarded embryos. You'd probably find your donor base for a charity like that would include a lot of folks that think IVF is good. In fact, it would probably do you some good to get a little closer to the process and those going through it trying to build a family before trying to say it should be outlawed.

AggieDub14 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Definitely

Eta: because God's provisions from the first parable are innocuous. It seems plausible that God could intervene in this way. IVF is not like that.

---

How do you know?

The idiot in the parable didn't realize a boat was from God...

Or are you saying that God is NOT omnipotent and could NOT intervene in that way.

---

I'm saying IVF is clearly contrary to what God's revealed to us about Himself. And the paradox is that God is omnipotent, but incapable of acting contrary to His divine nature. A being whose essence is existence can't cease to exist. Goodness can't be evil. An omnipotent being can't be impotent.

---

How?

BTW, you're saying in this case that God IS impotent. He CAN'T have given us IVF.

Your arguments are a paradox unto themselves...

---

God is all knowing and all powerful. He created humans and a world with the capacity for humans to develop IVF. It was always part of God's plan.

---

God gave us gas chambers and nuclear bombs. It was always a part of His plan that there should mass murder of innocents.

Do you agree?

---

That's a red herring.

---

In what way? It's a technology humans created in a world in which we were allowed to create it. That's your argument.

---

You took something meant to kill people and compared it to a scientific process that assists in the creation of human babies. You're smarter than that.

---

Depending on your definition of people, IVF is up there with the holocaust. Hundreds of thousands a year times 3 decades plus….

The gases themselves weren't meant to kill people. They were weaponized.

Nuclear power isn't meant to kill people. It was weaponized.

IVF isn't meant to kill people. But due to the inconvenience of fertilizing one egg at a time and implanting that embryo regardless of its "viability" we destroy them.

I disagree with IVF for a multitude of reasons, but I see why people would disagree with the "lesser" reasons: commodification of children, science can be twisted, etc. but the fact that people refuse to acknowledge that this "good" technology is destroying more children than it brings into this world is a point I will gladly call to light.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Literally the whole thing. From the onset it's pretty clear that you've just been responding from post to post without really thinking about what anyone is saying to you. It's the textbook definition of bigotry.

We are all okay if you personally decide it's wrong. We're all okay if you work to save potentially discarded embryos. You'd probably find your donor base for a charity like that would include a lot of folks that think IVF is good. In fact, it would probably do you some good to get a little closer to the process and those going through it trying to build a family before trying to say it should be outlawed.

---

Catholics are bigots and Jesus loved everything everyone ever does as long as they do them sincerely, and derive a sense of self satisfaction from it. It's like I'm actually AT the sermon on the mount in real life.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Literally the whole thing. From the onset it's pretty clear that you've just been responding from post to post without really thinking about what anyone is saying to you. It's the textbook definition of bigotry.

We are all okay if you personally decide it's wrong. We're all okay if you work to save potentially discarded embryos. You'd probably find your donor base for a charity like that would include a lot of folks that think IVF is good. In fact, it would probably do you some good to get a little closer to the process and those going through it trying to build a family before trying to say it should be outlawed.

---