Fertility clinics -- OK with god?

Oh look, a non-arguement is which he skips the points made while accusing others of not argueing.

YEAH ATHEISM!!!!

The only baggage is yours, and the continuous petulence that comes from someone who clearly sees what you present. But as I explained to one of your peers just the other day, the moral relativist only has to fool himself.

 

No. It is a logical non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow your premise--And frankly, your original premise is also a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of fallacious position.

 

So no intention of addressing my question, then? It was easy for Felicity, why is it so hard for you?

 

I suppose I don't follow.

If granting fertility to parents is against the will of an all powerful being, then would that being not have the power to conceal those sciences?

 

Its been addressed. Since I am an adhomiem 'pro-lifer' and all you are doing is looking to expose what you term hypocrisy, all of which were answered extensively in the debate you are seeking to drag into this one, which has been answered yet again ....

And now you are argueing about how other people are not answering your questions.

Yep, atheists are rational people.

Its not hard for Heroclitus, why is it so hard for you?

 

"And the Rabbi said 'I say we just toss the money in the air. What God wants, God will take."

I'm pretty sure that :

1. If there is a God; and
2. If God is what the deists say he is; Then

Fertility clinics, abortion clinics, homosexuality, or any of the other "conservative" hot buttons "God" would be fully capable of handling it himself.

 

Fertility is not granted. It is part of the nature of the being. Just as poor eyesight is not granted--it is a deficiency, not a thing itself. Any illness or imperfection is a deficiency in the nature of the being. It is something that is less or malfunctioning in the creation.

Sure, God could fix things, but the deficiency is a consequence of imperfection and serves a purpose in the grand scheme of it all. Despite the modern notion that all suffering is bad, suffering actually bears great fruit and we gain much through dealing with adversity that we would not have otherwise.

 

Yellow # 5 food coloring kills sperm cells and can cause a man to become sterile. That is where the idea that Mellow Yellow, which uses yellow # 5 kills sperm cells.

 

The previous debate has nothing to do with this one. You asked why god might deem fertility treatments to be bad. I said that in vitro, a common fertility treatment, essentially leads to numerous abortions. Then you failed to answer the logical question that follows. Vague mentioning of context and intent is not an argument and no way to address a question.

Also, since when is "pro-life" an ad homminem? Is anti-abortion more to your liking? The label isn't important. You've railed against abortions in the past, but it was shorter to simply say "pro-life" rather than "people who often complain about abortions."

By the way, I'm not looking to expose hypocrisy, and I don't call people hypocrites. I'm looking for consistency with the ultimate goal of understanding the mindset of posters that I regularly debate with and people who have different perspectives in general. So if you decide that you think god is fine with in vitro, but not abortion, then I'm going to ask you why there is a distinction.

 

But the fetus is sacred, is it not? Are you suggesting that man should play god?

 

So do you think god approves of fertility clinics and practices like artificial insemination?

 

So is that a 'yes' or a 'no?'

 

I am saying that we should stop blaming God for things that we brought on ourselves. God gave the Earth to man and we have made our own choice not to listen to Him, but go our own way......so we have done just that and we are reaping the fruits of doing things our way......and man is already playing god.

 

OK, so please just answer my question: is artificial fertility OK with god or not? Thank you.

 

That's one among some.

 

You still have not answered my question.

 

So, as always - no thesis, on the defenseive, avoiding discussion of ethics and accusatory while generally saying nothing. Gotcha.

Let me know what I am suppoosed to respond to, because every time I respond to what you ask me to, you claim I am answering your questions and that the thing I just rebutted was not actually what you were saying.

So, despite the similiarity of your post to a similar debate, there is no cross over - you say so.

You are looking for consistancy from pro-lifers, but there is no cross over with the previous debate - you say so.

You denegrate people as pro-lifers, in which you assign a generalized rant to those who are clearly capable of spelling out their position - but for which you are already to judge us based on consitancy.

As you looko for consistancy, you are of course not looking to call people hypocrites in the slightest.

In otherwords, you are simply saying the opposite of every point I make .... because you say so.

Maybe you should take the time to think through a position and defend it, so when a rebuttal arrives its not totally shocking to your position. Just a thought.

 

I was hoping for a response to the question: if god isn't okay with abortions, wouldn't he also have a problem with in vitro? Most people would answer that with a "Yes" or "No, because..." You provided a non-answer that involved the baggage of a previous thread and a non sequitur about atheism. So, if you'd like to respond to it with an actual answer then that would be great.

Any "denegrat[ion]" you're getting from the pro-life label is imagined. And, as I said, I don't call people out as hypocrites. If you think that isn't true, then please post an example of me doing it. Anyway, assuming you think god is okay with in vitro abortions but not other kinds of abortions, I want to know why you think that way.

Lastly, if it seems like I'm just saying the opposite of everything you're stating, maybe it's because you're making wild assumptions about my thoughts and intentions that simply aren't true.

 

That would all depend. Who is going to donate the sperm or egg? Is the donor going to have contact with the child after it’s born and throughout the child growing years? And if not, why not? Shouldn’t the child know who its biological parent is, so that it knows his or her biological family? What happens if the child grows up not knowing his or her biological family and ends up marrying one of them, and the baby that comes from such a union comes out deformed, who is to be blamed for that?

So for me, it’s not as simple as a yes, its ok or a no, its not ok.

 

Maybe you should referrence what I have constantly reminded you of: context matters. Intent matters. And we live in the real world where we have to consider the consequences of actions.

Hence impregnating and harvesting potential human life for stem cells? Well, perhaps you are familiar with the ethical principle of Pandora's Box. There is a point to reverence for human life - and one that, when we start harvesting humanity we should do with the utmost care.

Conversely, using techniques that are similiar to get a couple to increase chances of pregnancy may not suceed, but the intent there is creation. Obviously there are points along the gradient where people believe differently about where the reverrence for life begins and ends.

What you term hypocrisy, and that is your intent whatever you say (lets pretend this is not my first debate with you), others call context.

After all - killing people is bad correct?

So, we should punish a guy that walks around the corner and murders a child for no reason the same way we should punish a handy man who drops a hammer off a roof that accidentally kills a child? Soldiers are guilty of murder? Self Defense is horrific?

Agh, but when people introduce these contextual questions to the processes involving human reproduction ... well, no intelligent comments are needed at all ... you are just looking for consistancy from pro-lifers .... in a rather complex and unscientific area where one size most definitely does not fit all ... and yet communities must still formulate standards. Go figure.

 

And you're okay with that contextual distinction? You think god is okay with that distinction? In both cases (abortion because of in vitro and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy), there's a man-made "need" for an abortion. If both parties were more responsible with their decisions, there would be no need for any abortions. And the life destroyed in any case is innocent. Is intent really good enough as the only distinction?

First of all, I didn't call it hypocrisy. I implied it's inconsistent. Second, your implication is that I've called you out as a hypocrite in the past. That's patently untrue. Please try to keep your prejudices out of this.

 

Men don't donate sperm so they can visit the child. They donate because they want to make childless couples become parents. If you want the kid to see the father, you will have to make the biological father pay child support, even though the child already has a mother and father at home.

 

Yes, I do think God is OK with contextual distinction. Why? Because its in the Bible. All those things you atheists refer to as contradictions? Its because God takes context and intent into consideration - its the basis of Wisdom, and the error of the Old Testament is EXACTLY what you right above, that the blind application and adherence to rules is the method of morality.

Indeed, our entire concept of modern jurisprudence is based upon this.

Yet, because you cannot call someone a hypocrite from referring to thism you question both my faith and the benefits of accepting complexity?

And yet, you were pissed when I questioned your motives? Which were transparent as soon as you drug in a previous arguement. People are not as stupid as you think Burz, and when someone has you pegged from square one, well, it'd be best to stop and consider rather than bristle.

Semantics. A spade is a spade. Please get your ego under control and actually make an arguement.

Thesis, supporting evidence .... you know.

 

OK, since you seem to know what's on god's mind, then please tell us the criteria. Under which circumstances is fertility treatment OK and under which is it not?

 

And who is to be blamed if and when that child grows up and marry a relative and a child that comes from such a union is deformed or have some kind of abnormality?