Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Kannap]

"my religion should stop you from being happy"

Celrit, come on.

God doesn't want to stop anyone from being happy. The Catholic Church does not want to stop anyone from being happy. Opus Dei does not want to stop anyone from being happy.

We're just offering a more definitive way to happiness.

If I enjoy hiking, but you think hiking is sinful and depraved and that nobody can possibly enjoy it, but you think fishing is the true activity that leads to happiness while I hate fishing, and you try to force me to fish to make me happy, does that make sense to you?

Because it doesn't make sense to try and make people happy by assuming you have their best interests at heart by making them utterly miserable or treating them poorly.

And if you believe that's a "more definitive way to happiness," then I have serious concerns and worry about you.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

This demonstrates a very poor and/or nonexistent understanding of modern demographic trends.

Fertility rates are on their way down, and the population will cap out at 12 billion. You have nothing to fear.

[Celritannia]

And why is that wrong, without citing your religion or "immoral" statements?

Celrit, I didn't cite my religion when I explained why I thought IVF was immoral. I didn't cite it twice.

Then why is it immoral? Is it because it's in the bible, and therefore it is what God said?
Or are you yourself saying it is immoral?

[Kannap]

Happiness is sinful, God wants you to be miserable.

Come on man.

That's what I've gathered from everything I've heard you say about your brand of Christianity during my time knowing you on this forum. Don't be surprised when we don't want to take part in it, especially when you seem hellbent on forcing people to follow your religion against their will because its better for them.

[Celritannia]

Come on man.

That's what I've gathered from everything I've heard you say about your brand of Christianity during my time knowing you on this forum. Don't be surprised when we don't want to take part in it.

The Catholic version of Oliver Cromwell?

[Neutraligon]

Celrit, I didn't cite my religion when I explained why I thought IVF was immoral. I didn't cite it twice.

Then why is it immoral? Is it because it's in the bible, and therefore it is what God said?
Or are you yourself saying it is immoral?

IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

This is what they said. However I fail to see what is wrong with detaching sex and procreation, in fact seems to me it would be a good thing if sex and procreation where not necessarily linked, means there would be a lot fewer unwanted children if that where the case. The second part of the comment is intrinsically religious, and more specifically Christian in nature, so while the religion was not mentioned, it was hidden in the comment. I mean, our entire prenatal care is about "establishing the dominance of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." Hell that is the entire point of medicine.

[Celritannia]

Then why is it immoral? Is it because it's in the bible, and therefore it is what God said?
Or are you yourself saying it is immoral?

IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

This is what they said. However I fail to see what is wrong with detaching sex and procreation, in fact seems to me it would be a good thing if sex and procreation where not necessarily linked, means there would be a lot fewer unwanted children if that where the case. The second part of the comment is intrinsically religious, and more specifically Christian in nature, so while the religion was not mentioned, it was hidden in the comment.

As far as my religious understanding goes, the concept of procreating is established by god, therefore god does not want artificial insemination, ergo God does not want people to be happy.

That's what it seems like, from Sundiata's perspective.

[SD_Film Artists]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

Not really. It's been several pages now and you've yet to explain your justification beyond 'sex good, science bad'. Is it the naturalness of sex which makes it the good option or is it the unnaturalness of science? As I think IVF is no less Christian as long as it doesn't start changing DNA.

[Neutraligon]

This is what they said. However I fail to see what is wrong with detaching sex and procreation, in fact seems to me it would be a good thing if sex and procreation where not necessarily linked, means there would be a lot fewer unwanted children if that where the case. The second part of the comment is intrinsically religious, and more specifically Christian in nature, so while the religion was not mentioned, it was hidden in the comment.

As far as my religious understanding goes, the concept of procreating is established by god, therefore god does not want artificial insemination, ergo God does not want people to be happy.

Shrug I love the response from one of my formally Catholic friends (she is lgbt and so left for a church that would marry her to her girlfriend), god gave us the mind to overcome our physical issues. Why should I be up in arms against humans using that mind to overcome the physical issue of infertility.

[Sundiata]

Yes, but the case involves a homosexual couple who conceived a child through IVF.

He is targeting specifically homosexual couples, he is not targeting the use of IVF. Opposite sex couples using IVF would not lose their parental rights.

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

[Neutraligon]

He is targeting specifically homosexual couples, he is not targeting the use of IVF. Opposite sex couples using IVF would not lose their parental rights.

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

Except the entire point of the AG thing is not the IVF, they do not care about the IVF, they are specifically targeting LGBT parents regardless of IVF. If you say you are agreeing with the AG then the things I said about harm hold and you support it.

[Celritannia]

He is targeting specifically homosexual couples, he is not targeting the use of IVF. Opposite sex couples using IVF would not lose their parental rights.

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

Why should IVF be illegal (without citing religious and immoral arguments)?

You know, IVF can also help parents remove life threatening diseases in a child, via the third parent theory. IVF gives parents the chance to ensure their child does not have to suffer, and spend extortionate amounts of money on care.
Third Parent Theory allows children not to suffer when they are born.

[Sundiata]

That's what I've gathered from everything I've heard you say about your brand of Christianity during my time knowing you on this forum. Don't be surprised when we don't want to take part in it.

The Catholic version of Oliver Cromwell?

More like Josemaria Escriva.

[Neutraligon]

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

Why should IVF be illegal (without citing religious and immoral arguments)?

You know, IVF can also help parents remove life threatening diseases in a child, via the third parent theory. IVF gives parents the chance to ensure their child does not have to suffer, and spend extortionate amounts of money on care.
Third Parent Theory allows children not to suffer when they are born.

I knew someone with cancer who really wanted a kid. They however could not carry a kid due to the cancer and so she and her partner used IVF and a surrogate to have a child.

[Celritannia]

Why should IVF be illegal (without citing religious and immoral arguments)?

You know, IVF can also help parents remove life threatening diseases in a child, via the third parent theory. IVF gives parents the chance to ensure their child does not have to suffer, and spend extortionate amounts of money on care.
Third Parent Theory allows children not to suffer when they are born.

I knew someone with cancer who really wanted a kid. They however could not carry a kid due to the cancer and so she and her partner used IVF and a surrogate to have a child.

If IVF is immoral because of "natural reproduction", should we stop all medical procedures?

[Neutraligon]

I knew someone with cancer who really wanted a kid. They however could not carry a kid due to the cancer and so she and her partner used IVF and a surrogate to have a child.

If IVF is immoral because of "natural reproduction", should we stop all medical procedures?

... I mean, our entire prenatal care is about "establishing the dominance of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." Hell that is the entire point of medicine.

[Celritannia]

If IVF is immoral because of "natural reproduction", should we stop all medical procedures?

... I mean, our entire prenatal care is about "establishing the dominance of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." Hell that is the entire point of medicine.

Haha, yeah, I just realised when I posted you did mentioned that.

[Esalia]

Just because you see something as "morally wrong" does not mean it is morally wrong.
Muslims and religious Jews believe eating pork is morally wrong, but do you still eat pork?

Science advances, and science is their to help benefit people.
IVF is not "morally wrong" in anyway.

If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.

I see no problem with the underlined, especially because, if it wasn't for technology's control over biology, I would a) not exist in the first place, and b) would be dead several times over, or in severe agony.

However shit my life can be, I like living, and I also like not believing that my existence is inherently immoral.

[Kannap]

He is targeting specifically homosexual couples, he is not targeting the use of IVF. Opposite sex couples using IVF would not lose their parental rights.

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

For somebody who I would have assumed was pro-life, you're coming off as very anti-life.

[Sundiata]

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

Except the entire point of the AG thing is not the IVF, they do not care about the IVF, they are specifically targeting LGBT parents regardless of IVF. If you say you are agreeing with the AG then the things I said about harm hold and you support it.

You're missing the bigger picture Neutraligon. Yes, I agree with the AG.

I am for conjugal relations within heterosexual marriage that gives rise to human beings. Those are the moral conditions for creating human life. This standard isn't driven out of a hatred for homosexuals, sadism, or a blind hunger for power. There's a larger goal at play here that I would make clear if it didn't deviate from the general point of the thread.

[Sundiata]

I see no problem with the underlined, especially because, if it wasn't for technology's control over biology, I would a) not exist in the first place, and b) would be dead several times over, or in severe agony.

However shit my life can be, I like living, and I also like not believing that my existence is inherently immoral.

I love technology too but there are ethical limits to what we do with it, especially to ourselves and others.

[Celritannia]

Except the entire point of the AG thing is not the IVF, they do not care about the IVF, they are specifically targeting LGBT parents regardless of IVF. If you say you are agreeing with the AG then the things I said about harm hold and you support it.

You're missing the bigger picture Neutraligon. Yes, I agree with the AG.

I am for conjugal relations within heterosexual marriage that gives rise to human beings. Those are the moral conditions for creating human life. This standard isn't driven out of a hatred for homosexuals, sadism, or a blind hunger for power. There's a larger goal at play here that I would make clear if it didn't deviate from the general point of the thread.

So by that same logic, are C-Sections immoral?

What larger goal? Stopping people from happily having children the best way they can?

[Celritannia]

I see no problem with the underlined, especially because, if it wasn't for technology's control over biology, I would a) not exist in the first place, and b) would be dead several times over, or in severe agony.

However shit my life can be, I like living, and I also like not believing that my existence is inherently immoral.

I love technology too but there are ethical limits to what we do with it, especially to ourselves and others.

Unless IVF is harming someone in anyway, or they did not consent, then it is perfectly ethical.

[Sundiata]

And that's a grave moral issue.

He would be more correct if he were to just opt for making IVF illegal across the board regardless of sexual orientation. But stupidly, immorally as well, he decided to explicitly target homosexuals. With respect to same-sex marriage, that unique concern requires a larger-scale fix because same-sex marriage is constitutional. All of that said, I don't think that the AG is entirely incorrect.

For somebody who I would have assumed was pro-life, you're coming off as very anti-life.

Come on man, I'm not Thanos.

[Greed and Death]

You're missing the bigger picture Neutraligon. Yes, I agree with the AG.

I am for conjugal relations within heterosexual marriage that gives rise to human beings. Those are the moral conditions for creating human life. This standard isn't driven out of a hatred for homosexuals, sadism, or a blind hunger for power. There's a larger goal at play here that I would make clear if it didn't deviate from the general point of the thread.

So by that same logic, are C-Sections immoral?

What larger goal? Stopping people from happily having children the best way they can?

The goal of this government is to make everyone equally miserable.