Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

13

Comments

  • #62
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    jank wrote: »
    I think you should invest in a satire meter..... :) Also you do know that there was always religion in the Middle East even before Islam?

    Islam began in the early 600's AD. First crusade was near 1100 AD. So a good 300+ years before the west had contact with Islam in such a scale.
    In that video the golden age of discovery in the middle east was about 800-1100 AD. Yet you are saying religion is solelyresponsible for its demise when Islam existed and flourished well before this age? That is a weak arguement as its not logical.

    Of course religion was around but the point was the more power the islamic religion gained the further they fell from being a place of free thought and scientific advancement. When religions have the power they push their bat s**t crazy ideas on everyone else which stifles advancement.


  • #63
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Of course religion was around but the point was the more power the islamic religion gained the further they fell from being a place of free thought and scientific advancement. When religions have the power they push their bat s**t crazy ideas on everyone else which stifles advancement.
    There was a discussion in the Islam forum which touched upon Islam and science:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056622449


  • #64
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Sarky wrote: »
    We're starting to discover all sorts of ways in which we can get around our own limitations, be it a genetic disorder, infertility, vulnerability to disease or what have you. We no longer have to sit down, shut up, and accept ourselves "the way god made us". I think that terrifies organisations that rely on the poor, downtrodden and guilt-ridden for their power.

    They say IVF is playing god, and playing god is bad, so they hate it. Damn right it's playing god. God sure as hell won't step up, so someone has to do it.

    I very much doubt this is entirely the case. The RCC has no problem whatsoever with treating fertility disorders in other ways and are very much in favour of fixing health problems that prevent conception and full term gestation by use of medication and surgery. Even during Benny's recent rant about the arrogance of IVF he stated his support for the advancement of other kinds of fertility research and the expansion of provision of successful treatments. They don't have a problem with scientific advancement, just certain types of it.

    They have two issues with IVF. The first is the destruction of unused embryos. The RCC position is that life begins two stages before the embryonic stage, so if you accept that they believe that, then is makes sense that they believe IVF kills more lives than it creates. It doesn't mean that they are right, but from their viewpoint that life begins at conception it would be hypocritical of them to not feel that way.

    The second issue is where we can go from IVF. For example, at present scientists can use IVF to create small mammals with two female parents and no male parent. In time that same procedure is very, very likely to be improved and refined and be made available to lesbian couples who want to share a child who is biologically both of theirs. I can't even begin to imagine just how the RCC and many other churches are going to react to the news that the first baby with two mothers has been born. I can guess that it won't be good though.

    ETA: It's also worth pointing out that not all Christian churches have major issues with IVF. Most Churches in the Anglican Communion, for example, are fine with IVF just stressing that any child born of IVF should be the most important party to be considered as the technology advances.


  • #65
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    iguana wrote: »
    The second issue is where we can go from IVF. For example, at present scientists can use IVF to create small mammals with two female parents and no male parent. In time that same procedure is very, very likely to be improved and refined and be made available to lesbian couples who want to share a child who is biologically both of theirs. I can't even begin to imagine just how the RCC and many other churches are going to react to the news that the first baby with two mothers has been born. I can guess that it won't be good though.

    I was reading about this a little while back, and I have to say it made me slightly giddy in anticipation of the wonderful freak-out various Religions will have.


  • #66
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    There's way too much handbags in this thread. Cut it out.

    You know who you all are.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    smokingman wrote: »
    Aww, aren't you cute.

    I think you'll find that most people commentating on this thread don't base their opinion on a book of ****in ju-ju or what their local witch doctor tells them to think.

    You seem to be a fan of absolutes seeing as there is no coherent debating in your ramblings - ironic given that you pick and choose what to believe in that magic book of yours and then scream hissy-fits at posters who point that out.

    So, as a christian or whatever you are, what does your ju-ju book say about IVF?

    Well first of all I am not a Christian... but anyway...:rolleyes:

    Interesting that you do not tolerate an opposing view point equally in the suspicion that I may believe in a deity.

    So I MUST have some direct experience with IVF to comment but those who hold the same view point as you, get a free pass. Interesting logic there!:pac:


  • #68
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Of course religion was around but the point was the more power the islamic religion gained the further they fell from being a place of free thought and scientific advancement. When religions have the power they push their bat s**t crazy ideas on everyone else which stifles advancement.

    Now you are arguing two different things. Now the argument is that religion can be used a mechanism to control people. No **** sherlock! Doesn't mean we should get rid of religion. People will use whatever means nessesary to control others. Some use politics, does that mean politics is inherantly bad?


  • #69
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    jank wrote: »
    Now you are arguing two different things. Now the argument is that religion can be used a mechanism to control people. No **** sherlock! Doesn't mean we should get rid of religion. People will use whatever means nessesary to control others. Some use politics, does that mean politics is inherantly bad?

    I never said to get rid of religion, thats your words, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I only pointed out that the more power a religion is given the more progress will be impinged and therefore the power of religion over a country should be removed not the religion itself.


  • #70
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,773 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Dades wrote: »
    There's way too much handbags in this thread. Cut it out.

    You know who you all are.

    My apologies Dades, this is a subject that is close to me and it's easy for me to get rather passionate about it.
    jank wrote: »
    Well first of all I am not a Christian... but anyway...:rolleyes:

    Ok so, I'll address you as you.
    What is your problem with IVF?


  • #71
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,772 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Why is everyone so mad to have kids? Is it just the biological imperative?

    At a base level I'm pretty sure its just the innate desire all life has to propogate its species and pass on their own individual genes? or something :D

    Its become less of a priority in the western world though i think what with certain changes in society resulting in the decline of the nuclear family.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    smokingman wrote: »



    Ok so, I'll address you as you.
    What is your problem with IVF?

    I have no problem with IVF if it is used as a means of having a child.

    However, I would have a problem with a society that "designed" its babies, used human cloning. Huge ethical and moral implications there. I am sure you could understand that.

    Also, would like to see more of a push for people to adopt but do understand why people want their own.


  • #73
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    jank wrote: »
    However, I would have a problem with a society that "designed" its babies, used human cloning. Huge ethical and moral implications there. I am sure you could understand that.

    There are two "levels" of design, exemplified by choosing to have a child with blue eyes or choosing to have a child free from a disease associated with high mortality/morbidity.

    Only the latter is deemed acceptable (in the UK, at least) and even then, only for a limited range of severe disorders. I have no problems with this type of "design".


  • #74
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Why is there such resistance to the idea of designing babies?


  • #75
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Why is there such resistance to the idea of designing babies?
    If everyone chooses to have uber-clever babies, who will empty my dustbins?*

    *Joke (you never know).


  • #76
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    doctoremma wrote: »
    If everyone chooses to have uber-clever babies, who will empty my dustbins?*

    *Joke (you never know).

    If everyone had uber clever babies we might not be stuck in the pointless rat race that is human condition.


  • #77
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    doctoremma wrote: »
    If everyone chooses to have uber-clever babies, who will empty my dustbins?*

    *Joke (you never know).

    The cleaning robots that the uber-clever babies perfect. :D


  • #78
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    I never said to get rid of religion, thats your words, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I only pointed out that the more power a religion is given the more progress will be impinged and therefore the power of religion over a country should be removed not the religion itself.
    The middle east was actually the center of the scientific world for quite some time until religion put an end to that.

    Well that was not your original argument. The presence of religion doesn't automatically mean the curtailment of knowledge and discoveries.


  • #79
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Why is there such resistance to the idea of designing babies?

    Simply put this would fundamentally change society and civilization. No one of course knows to what end but would you like to be in a world where there are 1 billion identical Justin Bieber's floating about?

    If you cant see the ethical and moral questions raised with this issue then I cant help you.


  • #80
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    doctoremma wrote: »
    There are two "levels" of design, exemplified by choosing to have a child with blue eyes or choosing to have a child free from a disease associated with high mortality/morbidity.

    Only the latter is deemed acceptable (in the UK, at least) and even then, only for a limited range of severe disorders. I have no problems with this type of "design".

    Acceptable by whom though, some government body? Would you trust future governments to be holden to such moral standards. Personally I dont trust governments whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I see the value of this technology but its a massive can of worms.


  • #81
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    jank wrote: »
    Well that was not your original argument. The presence of religion doesn't automatically mean the curtailment of knowledge and discoveries.

    Apologies if I was not clear in my original post, perhaps what I should have said was "until religious dominance within middle eastern societies forced their pro-spirituality anti-scientific ideals onto the wider population through the gain and subsequent use of the religions significant political power."


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    jank wrote: »
    Simply put this would fundamentally change society and civilization.

    That's rarely a bad thing.
    jank wrote: »
    No one of course knows to what end but would you like to be in a world where there are 1 billion identical Justin Bieber's floating about?

    This sentence contradicts itself. Imagine (if that's possible for you) a world where people have no heresitary genetic diseases, have a higher resistance to cancer, age slower, live longer, these are some of the benefits of designer babies.
    jank wrote: »
    If you cant see the ethical and moral questions raised with this issue then I cant help you.

    There are ethical issues of course, but what makes you think they can't be addressed, in essence there is nothing wrong with designer baby tech. I'd bet in your case it dissolves delusions you have about the human condition. Like it or not your mother and father chose to conceive out of sexual desire picking attractive qualities in each other that would produce robust off spring the difference between that and designer baby tech is arbitrary.


  • #83
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    jank wrote: »
    Acceptable by whom though, some government body?
    Um, not the government, by me. I think it acceptable to be able to "design"* a child that will be born free of a crippling genetic disorder.

    *Not a great word to use as there is no design process i.e. no engineering aspect. It's simply selection.
    jank wrote: »
    Would you trust future governments to be holden to such moral standards. Personally I dont trust governments whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I see the value of this technology but its a massive can of worms.
    I doubt the government is going to make any ordinations that preclude choice on the part of the parent. As far as I'm concerned, the minute a government dictates that any parent must have their embryos screened to eliminate a genetic disorder (or to have blue-eyed children), I'll be off to buy some fireworks.


  • #84
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    That's rarely a bad thing.

    Well the last time a nation tried to start again led to the deaths of the 1/5 of the population. See Cambodia, so yes such drastic changes to society can be disastrous.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    This sentence contradicts itself. Imagine (if that's possible for you) a world where people have no heresitary genetic diseases, have a higher resistance to cancer, age slower, live longer, these are some of the benefits of designer babies.

    I simply mentioned one possibility. So in this utopian world would people still have sex or would it be deemed too dangerous as it would lead to an "imperfect" human. In such a world would we have a future Beethoven? Gattaca here we come! :pac:

    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    There are ethical issues of course, but what makes you think they can't be addressed, in essence there is nothing wrong with designer baby tech. I'd bet in your case it dissolves delusions you have about the human condition. Like it or not your mother and father chose to conceive out of sexual desire picking attractive qualities in each other that would produce robust off spring the difference between that and designer baby tech is arbitrary.

    What makes you think they can be addressed? Here you are talking about the year 3000 AD and you have no idea what the impact of such change could have to society.Are you that naive?

    In your view, science makes it possible so quick quick make it so! Yes, the human condition is important, in fact it should be all important and I am surprised that you would be so quick to dismiss it. However, I am not surprised to your view as the human condition is one of those tricky things for atheists and science to put their finger on. In other words science cannot explain the human condition therefore its better to subject it to the status of religion. Something quaint and old fashioned.


  • #85
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Um, not the government, by me. I think it acceptable to be able to "design"* a child that will be born free of a crippling genetic disorder.

    *Not a great word to use as there is no design process i.e. no engineering aspect. It's simply selection.


    I doubt the government is going to make any ordinations that preclude choice on the part of the parent. As far as I'm concerned, the minute a government dictates that any parent must have their embryos screened to eliminate a genetic disorder (or to have blue-eyed children), I'll be off to buy some fireworks.

    The trouble starts though when others think it is perfectly OK to design humans for their own ends. Parent, governments, military, corporations and so on. You have a genuine, ethical and moral guidance where such technology could be used for good, however, we all know the world is not like that. Not everyone is good or has good intentions!

    Would there be anything stopping a corporation to create an army of workers who would be obedient, don't fatigue and work 20 hours shifts no bother. Would it be OK for the military to create divisions of super humans?

    As I said HUGE can of worms here. Pandora's box so to speak.


  • #86
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,337 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    If everyone had uber clever babies we might not be stuck in the pointless rat race that is human condition.
    that depends on this option being available to everyone. whereas in reality, it almost certainly wouldn't.


  • #87
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Supersoldiers? And you're calling CerebralCortex naive?


  • #88
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    jank wrote: »
    Would there be anything stopping a corporation to create an army of workers who would be obedient, don't fatigue and work 20 hours shifts no bother. Would it be OK for the military to create divisions of super humans?
    Lots of things would prevent this, not least lack of knowledge of how to engineer embryos appropriately, how many several hundred genes you'd need to engineer, how many women you'd need to carry the embryos, and so on.

    But mostly, I think the vast majority of the human race would object to it.

    Honestly, if you wanted to create a population of superhumans, you'd be better off pursuing an artificial selection route. And there is a historical precedent to show that this would be wholly unacceptable to the vast majority of the world.


  • #89
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    Supersoldiers... breeding obedience....I'm starting to think this thread would be better suited to the Sci Fi section of boards :P


  • #90
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    jank wrote: »
    Well the last time a nation tried to start again led to the deaths of the 1/5 of the population. See Cambodia, so yes such drastic changes to society can be disastrous.

    Yes true. But who said anything about restarting societies, I'm talking about improve the quality of peoples lives.
    jank wrote: »
    I simply mentioned one possibility. So in this utopian world would people still have sex or would it be deemed too dangerous as it would lead to an "imperfect" human. In such a world would we have a future Beethoven? Gattaca here we come! :pac:

    Okay so you believe that we should stay away from discovery because it might be great but it could be horrible? A kind of its better to live in fear and decay than to find new things out kind of attitude? That's a straw man, no one ever said anything about enforcing, I'm talking about options, if I wanted to have kids I make sure they had every advantage as any parent would right? Having preventable congenital disease is a disadvantage, being smart is an advantage or when you're a parent are you going to stop you kids from going to school. I've never seen Gattaca isn't it a science fiction movie?
    jank wrote: »
    What makes you think they can be addressed? Here you are talking about the year 3000 AD and you have no idea what the impact of such change could have to society.Are you that naive?

    In your view, science makes it possible so quick quick make it so! Yes, the human condition is important, in fact it should be all important and I am surprised that you would be so quick to dismiss it. However, I am not surprised to your view as the human condition is one of those tricky things for atheists and science to put their finger on. In other words science cannot explain the human condition therefore its better to subject it to the status of religion. Something quaint and old fashioned.

    I don't know how to parse the above. Could you rephrase? What am I saying about the human condition?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Yes true. But who said anything about restarting societies, I'm talking about improve the quality of peoples lives.

    Ah yea, another abstract statement where people must conform to the sentiment as its improving peoples lives.

    "I'm trying to improve people's lives... damm it, dont question me!!"

    The elite of the Khmer Rouge were highly educated, most of the them earned degrees or even PHD's in western universities. They weren't a bunch of peasents. They too thought they were improving the quality of peoples lives. That worked out well! :rolleyes:
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Okay so you believe that we should stay away from discovery because it might be great but it could be horrible? A kind of its better to live in fear and decay than to find new things out kind of attitude? That's a straw man, no one ever said anything about enforcing, I'm talking about options, if I wanted to have kids I make sure they had every advantage as any parent would right? Having preventable congenital disease is a disadvantage, being smart is an advantage or when you're a parent are you going to stop you kids from going to school. I've never seen Gattaca isn't it a science fiction movie?

    I never said we should stay away from it. All I am saying is that before we jump helter skellter into using new technologies such as genetic engineering we should examime the consequences.

    As for straw man why do you use such language as we are currently living in some dark age where a world of star trek is around the corner if we were just more reasonable? Most people dont live in fear and decay, fortunately.

    If you cant see the issue (pandora's box) with geneticaly designing or engineering babies to have an IQ of 200+ then again I cannot help you, your mind is already made up.

    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I don't know how to parse the above. Could you rephrase? What am I saying about the human condition?

    The human condition is as you said is a "delusion"


Advertisement