[PUG] - Artificial insemination is immoral | Page 6 | INFJ Forum

[PUG] Artificial insemination is immoral

Satya said:
You will have to bring it up with Norwich. I was only responding to him. To quote...

I didn't feel he was being prejudiced towards Catholics by making that statement, but apparently you feel differently. And I carefully stated that only "some" Catholics wish to see gays imprisoned.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you mis-read. I was not making any personal comment on either you or Norwich. My point is that unqualified statements which identify individuals (all, many, some - and perhaps even few) can reasonably be understood as a generalisation. Generalisations about demographic groups of people is offensive.
 
[mods]Keep the main topic of this thread in mind everyone.
I understand things get heated on such things, but let's try to remain on what the discussion is in the first place.[/mods]
 
uberrogo said:
Im not going to research your posts. Simply be introspective and sensitive to how people in certain minorites would perceive the tone and meaning of what you say.
Click to expand...

Flavus Aquila said:
Perhaps you mis-read. I was not making any personal comment on either you or Norwich. My point is that unqualified statements which identify individuals (all, many, some - and perhaps even few) can reasonably be understood as a generalisation. Generalisations about demographic groups of people is offensive.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I will take your suggestions under advisement. As Indigo suggested, let us remain on the topic of the discussion. I am going to withdraw for now since I have nothing left to contribute.
 
I, She, did say that "Many shamefully promote prejudice."Yes, many of them are Catholic. I've even heard some Catholics defend their bigotry misusing Church doctrine.Of course they aren't alone in their intolerance. Instead of confronting the church, why not challenge the bigotry in and of it self? If this isn't appealing, then by all means please represent the doctrine you object to, honestly. Otherwise it seems like "Catholic bashing!"
 
I wonder if those who agree, would also acknowledge a child born from artificial insemination to be immoral also?

Artificial insemination is immoral
A child could be born from artificial insemination
Therefore that child is immoral.
 
Satya, I realize that you have some kind of vendetta against religion and honestly, I agree with you on some of this but these constant threads to provoke the very tiny number of bible thumpers we have on the site are getting old.
 
this tread is an old one covered in dust and has only been bumpt to prove a point in the new forum discussions. Do we really have to discuss the topic again? I don't see to what purpose it would lead.

and Norwich is a she... just so you would now lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
http://www.eliyahuarrival.com/documents/Holy%20Grail%20Evidence%20Summary.doc

Most people that run down the Scriptures and Christianity have never even looked deeply into the actual meanings of words used. Most people will not even "test" this writing to see if it is "real" or not.


If one were to read the text marked above by the link, and if one would read it in its entirety and not be closeminded about it; one would see the author is seeking peace through understanding. God is not the author of confusion; man is. If we foment confusion and arguments for the sake of hatred, have we really accomplished anything but further misunderstanding? I wish all could understand. I wish we all could live in peace.
 
Last edited:
Thread reopended as per justme's request.

Please note that this thread was originally created in April. An apology thread for this thread was also created back in April.
 
Shut up bill! OLO
 
Last edited:
Quinny said:
I wonder if those who agree, would also acknowledge a child born from artificial insemination to be immoral also?

Artificial insemination is immoral
A child could be born from artificial insemination
Therefore that child is immoral.
Click to expand...

Immorality is in the will of the one performing an action - not in the action. This means that an immoral action, while having a bad effect on the will of the one doing it, might have a good external effect. (ie. the "moral evil" of an action is in the one who acts, not in the external effects of the act - even in the case of arson, the burnt house doesn't become morally evil).

So a child born from artificial insemination is not in anyway less than a child born in the regular way - nor is a child born from rape less than any other child.

edit: In the clear moral case of rape, the father is morally evil; but the child is definitely not.
 
Last edited:
Jeezis Kroust! It must suck being a human that the vast majority of moralists over the ages would rather have not exist. But for the love of Mike, take heart in the age you are in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLastMohican
Apost, I have got a different colour now. I went to your profile page. You can update the avatar.
 
Satya said:
This is simple teleology taken to its logical conclusion. The penis was designed to go into the vagina. Any deviation from the grand design is not natural, and thus is abnormal, abhorrent, and sinful.

Anything that would dissociate the sex act from the procreative act is morally reprehensible. First you have a man masturbating to deliver a sample, which is very undignified and sinful since the hand is not a reproductive organ. Then you have the sample being injected into the woman by a doctor or the woman herself, which is very undignified and sinful since that is what the father's penis was designed to do.

If a woman cannot get pregnant without the help of artificial insemination, then clearly she has failed her job as a woman. Women were designed to have babies and if they can't accomplish that task through normal means, then they are failures and should be ashamed.

(Any takers?)
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote
Satya said:
This is simple teleology taken to its logical conclusion. The penis was designed to go into the vagina. Any deviation from the grand design is not natural, and thus is abnormal, abhorrent, and sinful.

Anything that would dissociate the sex act from the procreative act is morally reprehensible. First you have a man masturbating to deliver a sample, which is very undignified and sinful since the hand is not a reproductive organ. Then you have the sample being injected into the woman by a doctor or the woman herself, which is very undignified and sinful since that is what the father's penis was designed to do.

If a woman cannot get pregnant without the help of artificial insemination, then clearly she has failed her job as a woman. Women were designed to have babies and if they can't accomplish that task through normal means, then they are failures and should be ashamed.

(Any takers?)
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
This thread has not been seen for a very long time.
 
Wyote said:
Nor have you. Holy shit it's Barnabas!
Click to expand...

I still exist occasionally, I check in once a month or so. But all the dang kids these days, boy I'll tell ya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back