Posted on 08/11/2004 6:34:48 AM PDT by NYer
Moral license to take the life of another human being not posing an immediate threat to oneself and property or to others can only come from the government, since they are the only ones who hold power over life and death.
"No person shall be deprived of life ... [by the government] without due process of law."
So long as Osama was not immediately threatening another person, a random stranger could not legitimately just go up and kill him, even knowing his intent. A government could, as an act of war or self-defense.
The right to life comes from God but is mediated through the just laws and actions of human society, which is why the death penalty, war, and defensive killings, can be morally done.
I already admitted they were wrong assumptions.
Do you and you wife engage in this homosexual behavior?
No, my wife is beautiful enough that I have no need of such services to arouse me.
In addition, a woman's orgasm contributes to impregnation by distorting the cervix so that it reaches the expected seminal fluid. By giving your woman an orgasm without having an ejaculation, you are defeating this function.
Not true. Women can become pregnant without an orgasm on their part. Without having to ask who has been faking it, we can bring up the example of impregnation via rape.
Anyway, on its face, the entire oral sex act with a woman is no different than lesbian behavior since no pregnancy will result.
I agree, if it is seperated from the overall context of a completed act of sexual intercourse. There is no difference then.
Perhaps we might summarize this very succinctly. The Church teaches that husband and wife may do as they please with each other provided the man climaxes in the normal way inside the woman. Its just one simple and sensible rule, but apparently such nearly unrestricted freedom of action is far to stifling for many.
This is the part that confuses me too.
If consciousness, intelligence, and reason were given to man by God, how is it wrong to use those gifts to assist in the creation of another gift from God?
Isn't it wrong not to acknowledge and consequently *use* those gifts?
To have those gifts but be prohibited from using them seems rather wasteful.
Okay, why not just grow children outside the womb all the way to conception, ala "Brave New World". Just man using his intelligence, right?
The subject of the thread is in-vitro, which results in the woman giving birth,
not some fictional horror story you've read.
First, procreation should not be separated from the conjugal act. To do so is to treat human procreation as something less than it is.
Second, the unitive aspect of human procreation is not to be separated from biological reproduction. Such a separation is contrary to what human reproduction is by its very nature.
Third, no human should be produced or manufactured by technology. Such treatment is contrary to the dignity proper to humans by their very nature. (This is also the reason why human cloning is unethical.) The use of technologies that supplant the natural process of human reproduction inherently treat the child as a mere artifact, which is to treat the child contrary to what he or she is.
- A8
What you chose to read in what I wrote is a total distortion beyond a straw man. Your shrill tone suggests that you are incapable of a rational discussion on this matter.
So you don't have an answer to my question?
We've already said many times what is wrong with IVF.
You have done a great job in presenting the truth here. As usual, too many reject the truth because accepting it would mean changing the way they lead their lives.
"At the Pope Paul VI Institute, we saw compassion, concern, help and love," Stephanie said. "They provided individualized treatment, versus the empty feeling that we felt from the fertility clinic. Whereas the fertility clinic bypasses all the laws of nature, the Pope Paul VI Institute works with the laws of nature."
There's evidently an option to donate unimplanted embryos to other needy infertile couples.
We're not talking about buying a nice car, buddy, we're talking about being denied the miracle of bearing children. Your response may still be a cold "tough luck" -- but that doesn't say much for your ability to love thy neighbor and walk in their shoes.
It's simple, but it seems pretty arbitrary. I certainly wouldn't call it sensible.
Why not indeed? That is probably how children will be gestated in the not-too-distant future. I don't see a problem.
But with infertile couples, by definition procreation is separated from the conjugal act. That's how they know they're infertile.
As for reproductive technology, where do you draw the line? If I take medication to help me ovulate, I am relying on technology to help get me pregnant. Is that wrong too?
Finally, the creation of life cannot happen without God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is giving human doctors 'way too much credit.
If I ever underwent IVF, I assure you I would never, *never* "toss" those precious embryos. The act of tossing them is indeed vile -- but many don't. So, it's important to make the distinction. Heck, I would have no problem with a law mandating that any embryos not implanted by the parents must be donated to a needy couple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.