|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Same sex couple can have children
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But most heterosexual intercourse certainly doesn't take place to make babies. Tgere are dogmas which suggest it should, but I don't think this stands up to either reason or experience.
But ergo the vast majority of babies are born out of hetrosexual intercourse, so what exactly is your point Merseymike? If you are suggesting my argument is governed by catholic dogma, then I'm afraid I will have to disillusion you, I don't subscribe to the dogma.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.
Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test to ensure you were suitable, then you would go to a specialist who would create an egg and sperm from you and your partner's cells and from these a baby in vitro.
If one of the couple were female the foetus would be implanted, if not it would be grown in an artificial womb in the couple's home.
There would be no unwanted children, people would have to think long and hard about having a baby, and then prove they would be good parents.
The world would be a better place. Populations would stop rising, the world's overtaxed resources would recover. There would be no orphanages, lower prison populations, smaller, friendlier communities where everyone would know everyone else and work together for the greater good.
It would be wonderful.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
Think of a world where the government decides what sex your child is, what their physical and mental attributes will be. Think of a world where you can never be sure that the child you are rearing is any relation to you. Think of a world where parents are no longer important and the child is the property of the State.
Welcome to the new world order aka Frankensteinville.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
But that scenario could happen anyway, with or without this technology. Look at China many years ago, where girl babies were left outside to die because boys were more valuable.
Any technology left in the hands of an unsuitable person has the capacity for evil. I could kill someone with a pencil - I could also use it to write a sonnet.
I'm not saying your scenario couldn't happen - it has. Mine would be hugely desirable philosophically (if a discomforting to actually contemplate) and is more possible with this technology than without it.
It is certainly a more ethical ideologue than is eugenics which would lead to your scenario.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But that scenario could happen anyway, with or without this technology. Look at China many years ago, where girl babies were left outside to die because boys were more valuable.
Any technology left in the hands of an unsuitable person has the capacity for evil. I could kill someone with a pencil - I could also use it to write a sonnet.
I'm not saying your scenario couldn't happen - it has. Mine would be hugely desirable philosophically (if a discomforting to actually contemplate) and is more possible with this technology than without it.
It is certainly a more ethical ideologue than is eugenics which would lead to your scenario.
I agree on nearly all points, but in practice we can usually rely on mankind to do the wrong thing, lets keep sex for babies and for the expression of love, I'll even concede to the fun aspect too, but lets not dilute it by removing one aspect just for the sake of being politically correct.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I would have thought the best way of ensuring that the scenarios expressed by priest were to be aware of them. I simply think they are so unlikely that they should not form the basis of our decisions.
For example, I would imagine that plenty of people find the idea of sex with either the same or the opposite sex, depending on their orientation, pretty unappealing. That doesn't mean that we automatically dislike everyone who doesn't share our sexuality. I think I'd be regarded as quite hardline in terms of gay rights, but I certainly don't inhabit a gay ghetto, and I think the sub-categories you talk about are simply a sign that some people have prejudices. The number of old-style separatist lesbians or misogynist gays is really very small, and I hope the number of straight homophobes is falling too.
I would hope and believe that we are becoming more, not less, accepting of sexual difference, and that there is absolutely no reason why this sort of technology should lead to a brand of haters of the opposite sex. Its a bit like a science fiction slash novel!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
That's not what I am getting at though.
This comment works from the premis that:
1) We need to curb population control
2) We need to reduce the amount of unwanted children
3) We need to stop patently unsuitable people (abusers etc.) having children
4) We need to reduce abortions
All these things could be achieved by licencing pregnancy. Unfortunately, since pregnancy is free the only way to do this currently is by punishing people who have an unlicenced pregnancy. That is way into the realms of state control and an Orwellian nightmare
With this new technology people would be freed from the bounds of unwanted pregnancy, there would be no punishment for unlicenced pregnancy because unlicenced pregnancy couldn't happen, and if people had to think and plan and ask for help to have a baby, fewer people would do it for frivolous reasons.
This need not result in a world of eugenics - realise that even now IVF embryos are being screened for certain desirable characteristics (one recently was chosen by phenotype to become a donor for his critically ill brother). There is no need to invoke arguments of state control because state control can happen with or without this technology.
Result:
Every child in the world is wanted, loved and homed and population increase is curbed.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I agree on nearly all points, but in practice we can usually rely on mankind to do the wrong thing, lets keep sex for babies and for the expression of love, I'll even concede to the fun aspect too, but lets not dilute it by removing one aspect just for the sake of being politically correct.
First, I don't think anyone's disagreeing that sex is 'for babies' and 'for the expression of love', what people are disagreeing with (rightly) is the view that there these two 'ends' are inseparable, i.e. babies should only be made through sex, and (if you are being consistent, as is the current Pope) all sex acts should be open to procreation. I think that sex can be 'productive' without being 'reproductive'.
Second, I am distinctly nervous about using the law to impose 'moral' views on sex and reproduction (even if Christians could ever agree about what a 'moral' view is!). People are at perfect liberty to disagree with one another, and not to have others priorities forced down their throats. And, to be frank, I accept what I take to be Christian ethical standards because of my free response to God's grace in Christ, and that response would be devalued if the law coerced me into accepting 'Christian' ethical precepts.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Exactly.
Wouldn't it be better to separate sex and procreation?
That way people can engage the loving, pleasurable passtimes without possibly having an unwanted child as punishment (both for them and the child)
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Well, it's no so much about separating sex and procreation as saying they don't INVARIABLY belong together.
The idea of people producing a baby through their physical love is a beautiful one. But then so can be the idea of two people 'making love' without the hope of a baby, or of two people going to great non-sexual lengths to have a baby.
I think legitimate pluralism is the order of the day.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I mean that God calls people to use their sexuality and their capacity for (re)productive love in a plurality of ways. Rather than clinging to a myopic idea of what is 'natural' we should be open to discerning God's call in a variety of situations - these include heterosexual unions where sex issues in reproduction (which is why I'm not happy with straightforwardly saying that sex should be separated from reproduction) but are not limited to them.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Ok, I see.
I agree in part, but with pleasurable sex comes the threat of an unwanted child. The only way to separate that threat from the pleasure is to separate the production of a baby from the production of an orgasm.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
It seems to me that there are at least two distinct issues here:
- One, the process itself and moral/ethical issues surrounding it, whomever it is used by; and
- Two, the use of this process by same-sex couples.
Or even for that matter the use of this process using any two people of either sex who are not married to each other, e.g. what if some scientist decided to take DNA (if it were available) from Einstein and da Vinci to create (assuming intellect to have a genetic component) a great genius. Neither of the donors need be even aware of their involvement, but I think many ethical issues would remain.
I'd say that my views on issues surrounding this process, at least, might be relevant to it. I don't know that my views will be terribly popular. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
- I don't believe in deliberate abortion, even of of one-second old fertilised ova, so if the process involves deliberately creating and then not bringing several ova to term, I don't believe the process is moral. I know the morality of abortion is a different thread topic, but for those of us with this view it could be relevant.
- There are countless children out there needing adoption; I honestly believe that, except in very rare circumstances, it is much better for parents to adopt them than to go to extreme measures to beget their own biological offspring.
- It could be argued that begetting offspring with someone who is not one's wedded spouse is a rather unusual form of adultery. Adultery without the actual sex sounds like a contradiction, but this may be it. I don't know. I don't generally agree with the approach of the Roman Catholic Church on matters like this (if it is sexual and involves anything artificial, they seem to be against it) but on the other hand they may be right. (If artificial means are morally acceptable, however, but one must only use them with one's spouse, then I wonder what this means for a man who preserves his sperm, then dies, then his wife remarries -- would she only be able to use his sperm to beget before marrying another man? What about a stranger -- if she will remain unmarried to another man for some period of time, could she be considered married to the (dead) man whose sperm she uses? These sound strange but on the other hand, these could be real, live issues; they are for me...)
- I don't believe in sexual intercourse outside of male-female marriage as permitted to Christians. Also another thread topic but relevant, at least potentially.
- At the same time, any people who are born this way are people and should not be shunned or mistreated, whatever the status of their birth. Bastard offspring have been very, very badly treated at various times and I believe Christians should take care that, whetever they believe about the morality of this process, that they act rightly toward those children who did not ask to be born through this process and are just as human as anyone else. Certainly someone somewhere will try to argue that they are not or punish them for perceived sins of their parents.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I also don't see pregnancy as a "threat" and absolutely don't believe the government should tell people they may not beget children. It goes against tradition and my understanding of morality. I don't believe in "parent licenses" or anything of that nature, and I speak as someone who came from an abusive background myself. I do think the separation of sexual intercourse from pregnancy and begetting children is unhealthy and an incorrect view of the world, just as eating and the body's health are connected, whether or not contraception is permissible or desirable at times. (Someone could argue -- and I am not totally certain this is correct -- that contraception is to sex as bulimia/induced vomiting is to eating. I've wrestled with this one off and on for years.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ThoughtCriminal
Shipmate
# 3030
|
Posted
quote:
What does concern me more is that so much effort is placed into sorting out either infertility or artificial reproductive techniques when there are already so many young people being brought up in care, or languishing in 'orphanages' overseas. Perhaps this is because I am adopted, but I've never had any strong feelings about 'blood ties'. If people want to parent, why not look towards making adoption (including trans-national adoption) a lot easier?
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) @ Merseymike. Exactly what i was going to say, but about 10 times more succinct than i would have been.
Dare I make this theological, and say that it is specifically Christian to promote adoption because of God's example of adopting us as His/Her (delete as appropriate) children (not metaphorically "children", but really God's children, transcending the merely physical conception of reality), or would that be derailing this thread too much?
Posts: 126 | From: Coventry | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Er, now that we know what induced vomiting looks like, JL, I implore you not to post a smilie demonstrating proper condom use... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
David, thanks, you have said a lot of things that I feel but refrain from saying because I get accused of being homophobic (which I do not think I am) when I do say those things.
IBP, what about introducing a tax system like China has for families who have large numbers of children.
Divine outlaw Dwarf, I don't think that all sex should be open to procreation but am minded to say I think procreation should only occur as the result of sex.
MerseyMike, being aware of a scenario does not preclude realising that scenario, only 60 years ago Hitler tried to install a supremicist view on the world, he wasn't the first and he won't be the last, but I imagine that future attempts will be more subtle.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think there are other much more likely scenarios that I would fear before this one, Priest.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Divine outlaw Dwarf, I don't think that all sex should be open to procreation but am minded to say I think procreation should only occur as the result of sex.
But why, if the 'natural' connection can be broken in one direction, why not in the other? This could sound like heterosexual special pleading!
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
But why, if the 'natural' connection can be broken in one direction, why not in the other? This could sound like heterosexual special pleading!
For the simple reason that the results are possible without external intervention.
i.e. Sexual intercourse is the way of procreation as governed by God or nature depending on your view point, whilst it can have a recreational aspect with the introduction of contraception, the removal of that contraception results in the possibility of procreation. This is an exclusive ability to hetrosexual sex, and as such needs no special pleading.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Just to clarify, Priest, are you in favour of 'artificial' contraception? Your position would seem to preclude it. Most acts of heterosexual intercourse are open to reproduction unless there is someting "external" (e.g. contraception) at play.
As I think I said earlier, you have an idea of 'nature' as some kind of static God-given thing existing independently from human agency. Nature changes over time, not least because of the actions of human beings, who are at once part of nature and at the same time have a relative autonomy from it. Nature is a process, a becoming, and humans, for better or worse, have their hands on part of the rudder.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
Contraception is fine in my book, condom, coil, pill etc..
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Wouldn't it be better to separate sex and procreation?
Yeah. God really had it wrong in the first place, linking the two like that. What could She have been thinking?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laudate Dominum
Shipmate
# 3104
|
Posted
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the licensing-parents thing. I know too many wonderful "accidents," indeed, I am one myself, and just because we weren't planned doesn't mean we aren't appreciated. Well, to tell the truth, our parents may not have planned us, but Someone did.
As for adoption, yes, I would agree on that point. For couples who cannot have children without medical intervention, adoption is the best option! I cannot understand the emphasis on children being genetically related to the adults. I know families who actually have some genetic children and some adopted children, and you can't see the difference in the way they're treated, indeed, one wouldn't be able to tell at all except that some of the children don't resemble their parents.
--------------------
"They think us barbarians because we cling to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not cling to the past." --G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 518 | From: Lala Land | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Laudate, adoption is a ctually a pretty poor option in a lot of societies-simply because of the supply-demand situation. It is salutary to realise that in many countries couples who are not conventual (i.e. unmarried or homosexual) will be adenied the opportunity of adoption because of their perceived "unsuitability".
Are you suggesting that couples (and I'm not even going to start on their gender) who cannot conceive without medical assistance should be denied that assistance? That's a bit tough, particularly coming from one of your tender age, who is an untried horse in the reproductive stakes.
We all know that unplanned children are not necssarily unwanted ; I speak from the experience of producing 3 contraceptive disasters (diaphragm, cervical cap and mini-pill failures, to be exact-and I'm a doctor, for God's sake.
Just how adopted children feel about their parentage (and you have only addressed the apparent feelings in the families of your acquaintance) is a complex issue indeed, and could be the subject of another thread.
I never cease to be amazed at how reproductive technology has advanced since I qualified 25 years ago-Louise Brown was born just before I graduated. Her existence could not be described as anything but a blessing. Her parents were lucky in that IVF worked for them-it isn't a guarantee of success and is not to be undertaken lightly.
I would be interested to know how many pregnancies are achieved through "informal" donation of sperm for example to a lesbian couple. It certainly does happen!
Can anyone comment further on this?
cheers all,
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Contraception is fine in my book, condom, coil, pill etc..
This doesn't fit in with your arguments, Priest. Contraception is decidedly unnatural and one is 'playing God', to use your term, if one uses it. If you argue that God intended sex for procreation (with fun as a lucky sideline) then contraception is against God's plan for humanity.
I would suggest that the reason you agree with contraception is because it has become accepted and you have grown up in a world which has it. You have never known any different so your acceptance of contraception is not an intellectual or philosophical opinion which you have reasoned for yourself, but simply that you see it as 'normal' so it's ok.
I'm not saying that that is wrong by any means, just that it doesn't fit with your argument about 'natural' or 'playing God'
[tangent]
Incidentally the inter-uterine coil, it could be argued, is a form of abortion since it stops a fertilised egg implanting in the womb. I think it's in an entirely different boat from a-fertilisation methods of contraception.
[/tangent]
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
multipara - there are a fair few 'informal' schemes around for lesbian couples. They seem to work well and avoid all the bureaucracy of the 'official' channels - its amazing what you can do with a turkey baster and a jam jar.
I think the 'naturalness' argument is pretty dodgy : contraception does prevent pregnancy and if we take the 'babies are a gift from God and life should always be promoted at all costs' view, then it is consistent to oppose it. Give the Vatican its due ; I disagree with that line too, but its a good deal more consistent than the anti-abortion campaigner using contraception and justifying it on perfectly sensible utilitarian grounds! But this is another thread, and probably a dead horse anyway....
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Inellectbyproxy wrote
quote:
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.
Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test....
and
quote:
but with pleasurable sex comes the threat of an unwanted child. The only way to separate that threat from the pleasure is to separate the production of a baby from the production of an orgasm.
The threat can be dealt with through contraception and voluntary sterilisation. Of course there will always be cases where for a variey of reasons: rape, ignorance, carelessness, etc, their will be unwanted pregnancies but your alternative, intellect, is not so much Frankenstine (see comments by The Priest) but authoritarian. Wonderful? I think not.
Like most visions of Utopia, your scenario is not only dangerous but deeply naive. Imagine the power of governments and their 'baby licensing officals'; the possiblities for oppression and corruption would be endless.
J
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
This doesn't fit in with your arguments, Priest. Contraception is decidedly unnatural and one is 'playing God', to use your term, if one uses it. If you argue that God intended sex for procreation (with fun as a lucky sideline) then contraception is against God's plan for humanity.
Hold on, so what you are saying is that preventing the pregnancy is exactly the same as removing the egg, stripping dna from a cell structure, artificially inseminating the egg and then embedding it ito the wall of the womb? Or better still, the same as atrificially growing male stem cells in an environment that causes them to produce a viable egg like cell, then artificially inseminating that cell with another males genetic material before embedding that into the womb of a 3rd party in the form of a surrogate mother.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but your argument on my opinions on contraception not being compatible with my argument against un-natural conception is pretty lame to say the least.
My opinion, which is compatible with contraception is based on the simple fact that a couple using contraception to avoid pregnancy, can still naturally conceive should they decide to not use contraception, can two gay males do that? No. Can two gay females do that? No.
And yes I'm aware of the other unfortunate consequence, can an infirtile couple do that? No.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Priest,
That is not what I am saying at all, either you are misunderstanding me or you are picking a fight. My point above was made to reinforce the argument that philosophically one can not oppose something because it is 'unnatural' or 'playing god' and yet condone contraception as 'natural' or 'not playing god'. They are quite simply opposing and exclusive view points.
If you would be a little clearer why you think this technique is any more unnatural than contraception then we could clear this side argument up.
Can I say that I do not neccessarily endorse some of the scenarios I am putting forward, merely that they are interesting scenarios to discuss.
The point I was making was that, assuming you think that sex for fun is ok, this technique could realistically (and ethically) remove the risk of an unwanted baby from the act of pleasurable sex. It would also be a vehicle by which pregnancy could be effectively licenced
Not only could this technique help any couple of any orientation have a child, it would (assuming the licencing scenario) remove unwanted pregnancy totally, and curb population growth. It would be utopia.
I state that I do not believe that this scenario would work - utopias probably never are utopian. I also do not believe that this scenario is necessarily a Good Thing. It's just interesting to discuss it.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
IBP, I really cannot equate contraception being similar in anyway to the unatural insemination of genetic material in order to produce children, I understand what you are saying i.e. using a contraceptive device or drug is upsetting the natural process. However the instructions on a packet of condoms do not say "before sexual intercourse, get doctor to fit condom then observe intercourse and check results with invasive procedure".
Also with contraception no surrogate third party is required.
Further contraception is a prevention to conception and not a means to conception, it is an entirely different thing.
I think your parallel is much like avoid cats in the street because someone got killed by a lion in Africa and lions are cats. It has information that may suggest it is correct but the reality is somewhat different.
To summarise, I would rather see this kind of procedure not take place, I think hetrosexual couples who cannot conceive should, if they can, consider adoption.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Priest:
Please note -
I am NOT drawing ANY parallels between contraception and the technique described in the o/p.
again:
I am NOT drawing ANY parallels between contraception and the technique described in the o/p.
I can't say this any more clearly. I mentioned contraception merely to draw attention to the fact that your argument was badly flawed. I mentioned contraception ONLY to show that your 'unnatural, playing God' argument was hypocritical if you agree with contraception.
I was pointing out the flaws in your philosophy, I was NOT saying that contraception was in any way related to the a-sexual reproduction described.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
All you have suceeded in doing is proving that your use of contraception to show me as a hypocrit was fundamentaly flawed.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533
|
Posted
quote:
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.
Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test to ensure you were suitable, then you would go to a specialist who would create an egg and sperm from you and your partner's cells and from these a baby in vitro.
If one of the couple were female the foetus would be implanted, if not it would be grown in an artificial womb in the couple's home.
There would be no unwanted children, people would have to think long and hard about having a baby, and then prove they would be good parents.
The world would be a better place. Populations would stop rising, the world's overtaxed resources would recover. There would be no orphanages, lower prison populations, smaller, friendlier communities where everyone would know everyone else and work together for the greater good.
It would be wonderful.
My Goddess! I just don't think this has been thought through. I mean, first of all it takes more than the right plumbing to make a baby. I know that people are having (and not having) unwanted children all the time, but is that a good reason to rob men and women and alternate realtionsip couples (groups, ect) the joy of creating our children within and with our own bodies in an active manner of participation?
That's (and I know this is not the popular term right now) un-natural in the extreme. Sure, contraception is techinically un-natural or at the very least a manipulation of natures patterns, but there are degrees of everything and various shades of grey and removing the ability to have children from people so that sex for pleasure is risk free and the population increase is curbbed is just oh so very violating to the natural order of things.
The gods made this act the act the produces offspring in every species on earth. That is a pretty heavy statement that it should stay that way in my opinion.
That said, those unable to have children because of biological inability (men with men as an example) should be given the opportunity that nature did not give them through science if possible. It's not "natural" in the strictess sense of the word, but it's (to me) a much less violating concept than separating sex and pro-creation completely.
--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
I'm in a rush, so these thoughts are brief and probably badly put, but that's never stopped me before...
I'm bothered most by the implications for social justice.
Intellectbyproxy's distopian fantasy calls for state licensing. Every state I have participated in or read about is constituted as a device for protecting social injustice and guaranting the rights of the priviledged (a process in which the church has often been a partner). I cannot imagine a state not managing a baby licensing scheme in a way that would give rich people what they want at the expense of everyone else.
This is also the problem with surrogacy. It's not uncommon here in the US, and neither are lawsuits contesting parental rights over the resuting children. Amazingly, a great many surrogact contracts are drawn up between rich, infertile would-be parents and poor women. Lesbians and gays are just like everybody else and not posessed of some exraordinary morality preventing them from abusing poorer people when able. So this technology would seem to open up new avenues to the horror of abuse of the poor by the rich in "this womb for hire" schemes. This isn't an argument against this special case but one against surrogacy as practiced in the pretense that the resulting child can be raised in a two parent family, cutting out the rented womb (and attached woman). Surrogacy in a polygamous or other extended family structure would be a way out.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
All you have suceeded in doing is proving that your use of contraception to show me as a hypocrit was fundamentaly flawed.
I think you're running from the argument now, I don't believe there was anything fundamentally flawed about my point, if there was then prove it to me, don't just make bald statements like the one above. If you want to continue this side argument, please start another thread and I'll post, but this thread has some great discussion on it and I don't want to further side track it!
(I am going to Canada tomorrow and will thereafter not be able to respond for a month, so if you do start a thread and I don't post that's why)
Both Asdara and Jerry Boam: good points made - Jerry you used the term 'un-natural' and qualified what you meant by it, and I agree with you. The scenario I posited was NOT one I think would be good, or one that I think would work. I don't think any such scheme could ever work because the state cannot be trusted to deal with things like this. It would indeed be a dystopia, because it would be abused.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
IBP, throughout this I have given my opinions, I have not agreed with your opinions but I respect your right to express them. I think I have given adequate explanation to what I mean.
You so far have accused me of picking a fight and have called me a hypocrit, despite this I am not upset with you, I forgave you these small things as I read them.
I cannot give an answer you will be happy with as you will not be happy with any answer I give.
I can live with the fact that we disagree and I would hope you can accept this too, it would not stop me from buying you a drink in the pub and having a lively debate with you on a given subject but you may not want to drink with me.
If you want to continue to discuss this threads subject then go ahead, I will refrain from posting further on this particular thread as it is obviously a point of dis comfort for you and I do not wish to fuel any bad feeling, thankyou for the debate.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmmm.....creating children through a technical/bureaucratic process.
The neighbourhood I work in has 29% of the families listed as single parent. Let me give you a hint about unwanted children: the dysfunction is not the kids fault. The process suggested hurts the kid and allows the parents to not have or take responsibility for their offspring. The number of single parents would actually rise under this approach. Why? Because dads and mums would have their feelings seperated from the process.
I love my kid. I believe one of the reasons why I do is my wife and I had fun making her. And...she was unasked for; when she was a bump, we called her "Whoops". ![[Smile]](smile.gif) She was a human accident but a godly idea. No bureaucratic/technical process could ever come close to providing the density of feelings that led me to love my kid.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Priest:
Absolutely no offence was meant to you personally with the above comments. I felt you were missing my point and attaching significance to contraception itself when contraception was simply a device to highlight what I saw as an inconsistency in your argument. It certainly was not my intention to label you a hypocrite because of this one argued point.
I respect your views fully, I don't think I am right by any means - this was an argument to explore an issue, not something in which I personally believe.
If I have missed your point, then you have my sincere appologies. Nothing was meant personally. There is no discomfort; it's not an issue which is dear to me, just an issure which is interesting to me.
And I'll take you up on that drink. Mine's a Speckled Hen.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
The gods made this act the act the produces offspring in every species on earth.
Not entirely true -- see my earlier comments about alternative reproductive modes in nature.
(Bedbugs have gay relationships, you know. The males store their lovers' sperm and use it, along with their own, to impregnate females. Presumably God, or the gods, made them that way...)
I'm not sure I have a serious point here, really, so ignore me if you like.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Asdara
Shipmate
# 4533
|
Posted
Will do ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Not all those who wander are lost. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 239 | From: Illinios | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'd object to the forced separation of conception from sex as described glowingly by IBP:
First, because it is eminently clear that the primary evolutionary purpose of sex is conception, and so separating the two represents the worst sort of modern instrumentalist/ materialist thought, the same sort of thought that has effectively turned babies into commodities already, and forwarded a new kind of eugenics, and
Secondly,
Because there is no way for the State, any State to set suitability guidelines for who should qualify as parents. How would we do such a thing? Imagine: Poor people? No, they couldn't support a child properly (never mind that poor people sometimes are very important indeed). Fat people - No. Bad genetics, or teaching bad habits. Smokers? No, they might croak, or have a bad home atmosphere. The disabled? Forget it. The stupid? Forget it. Someone with a juvenile criminal record? Don't get me started. It is completely impossible to figure out who will be a good parent, by any set of standards. The only thing you could do, really, is prevent reproduction by people already convicted of child abuse. So you'd not be able to prevent very many births this way. And frankly, even that doesn't represent a good way of seprating out abusers. We surely know of people raised in "good" homes, who bear eternally the scars of their emotionally difficult upbringing. We also know that child abuse charges don't necessarily represent unfit parents. We've heard about the lady arrested for child sexual abuse because she had the temerity to nurse her kid beyond age three. Attitudes on spanking alone could render huge swaths of otherwise perfectly decent parents unsuitable.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
(Bedbugs have gay relationships, you know. The males store their lovers' sperm and use it, along with their own, to impregnate females. Presumably God, or the gods, made them that way...)
Sings...
All things bright and byoootiful! All creatures gay and straight!
Aint it weird and wonderful the ways they procreate?
The bi bed-hopping bed bug,
Hermaphroditic snails,
Parthenogenetic aphids,
and Sonoran Whip tails!
All things bright and byoootiful! All creatures great and small.
All things bi and curious! The Good Lord made them all!
OK I'll stop now, I don't know what brought that on.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Laura wrote:
quote:
Because there is no way for the State, any State to set suitability guidelines for who should qualify as parents. How would we do such a thing? Imagine: Poor people? No, they couldn't support a child properly (never mind that poor people sometimes are very important indeed). Fat people - No. Bad genetics, or teaching bad habits. Smokers? No, they might croak, or have a bad home atmosphere. The disabled? Forget it. The stupid? Forget it. Someone with a juvenile criminal record? Don't get me started. It is completely impossible to figure out who will be a good parent, by any set of standards
Spot on! Life is messy and complex and wonderful, just like parents in fact.
J
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
