Reiterating Vatican teaching, he called marriage the only permissible place to conceive children.

Rebuttal:

i'm a transhumanist - I think that not only do we have the right to use technology to overcome biological limitations, I think we have a DUTY to do so. Anything done to enhance and improve the lives of the human race is 'good' in and of itself.

I guess this is why they like sex with altar boys so much: no chance of a conception that goes against the will of God.

Dear Pope and other high muckty-mucks in the Catholic Church: You lost all moral authority to discuss anything remotely related to sex, sexual orientation or reproduction when you decided that it was more important to shelter a group of child abusers than to take the PR hit and turn them in for their just punishment. Your attempts to speak to any "morals" or "values" are done with a forked tongue. If you had any sense of decency or shame you'd STFU, devote your massive fortune to weeding out the evil that is rotting at your core and leave the rest of us alone for the decades it will take for us to begin to forget your actions.

It's so much easier being a godless heathen.

also - the more control we have over our own biology the more freedom we've got. Imagine a world where people could look however they'd like - where biology was no longer destiny. gender was a choice, as was skin color or even age.

I'd like to live in a world where people could switch bodies and gender at will or whim, where they could design a child or grow one up naturally or maybe find a middle ground that suited their beliefs. A world where a child could, once they were old enough, decide for themselves what they wanted to look like or enhance.

I wonder what the Catholic church would think of such a world?

Like people who have sworn themselves celibacy* are experts on the subject....



_{*other than buggering young boys.}

How dare people use alternate means than just plain schtupping to get pregnant.

Can't use contraception. Can't use proception. Has the Pope considered that perhaps God gave us the wit to ease conception because that is the means to help these nice folks add more folks to the rolls?

KiplingKat872:

You have demonstrated, in this thread, that you do not understand evolution, even as it was in the late 19th century, much less today.

I am happy to offer you the information that you would need in order to participate in this discussion, but as it stands, it is quite evident that you do not know what you are talking about. This is saddening, to me, because I find the subject quite interesting, and your misrepresentation of the topic does more harm than good. You are basically giving the "creationists" all of the ammunition that they could possibly need. In doing so, you are hurting me, personally and professionally, and I am not happy about that.

If you are under the impression that you are qualified to act as a spokesperson for anthropology, please disabuse yourself of that notion right away. If you would like to learn more about how anthropologists understand evolution, please feel free to email me (but tone down your attitude). You really don't know what you're talking about. I would like to help you, but you have to meet me half way here.

KiplingKat872: DarwiOdrade: fertility/infertility is a binary switch - you're either fertile or not - but in the real world infertility can simply mean reduced fertility.

And we are back to arguing semantics.

If these people can conceive on their own, why don't they?
The FACT is, in REALITY, is that when people are ready to throw down tens of thousands of dollars for make a baby, they have already exhausted the options to conceive without assistance.

The end result is the pretty much the same, passing genes of infertility into succeeding generations.

As long as there are succeeding generations, the genes have been passed on and the lineage survives, and therefore, in Darwinian terms, the genes are not considered selective disadvantages.

The people who employ IVF and other fertility treatments live in an environment where those treatments are part of the landscape to which they are adapted. From a practical perspective, they are structurally isomorphic to a robin that lives in an environment with high-carotine plants that stimulate the production of red pigment in the chest feathers. The robin cannot mate without those attractive feathers, and he cannot produce those feathers without carotine in his diet, but as long as he lives in an environment with the right nutrients, he has no difficulty in reproducing.

It simply does not matter, from the point of view of the gene lineage, how the genes get into the next generation, just so they do. If a person lives in an environment that includes fertility medicine, whatever condition that is effectively treated by that mdical care is not a selective disadvantage. If the genes do not interfere with reproduction, they cannot logically be called selective disadvantages. They are at worst selectively neutral as long as the environment does not prevent reproduction.

If the same people lived elsewhere, where such care was not available, that might not be the case, but that's beside the point because they don't live elsewhere, they live here.

Now please, take a step back, consider the fact that at least some of the people who disagree with you are actually rather knowledgeable about this subject, and drop the defensiveness. It's not helping you, and it's aparently harming the reputation of my profession. Thank you.

KiplingKat872: FloydA: the same argument.

So you are reiterating the same argument everyone else is: Anything humans do is part of natural evolution, ergo it is proper.


No, you are committing the "is/ought" or "naturalistic" fallacy here.
Noting that something is does not imply that it "should be."


I do not agree with that viewpoint. I have already stated why, many, many times.


You seem to have misunderstood the point.

Do thing things we do have an impact of the evolution of ourselves and other species? Yes. Is it natural? No. Is it right? We really don't know enough to be playing god the way we are.


Is it "supernatural" when we do it? No. Natural is the only category left.



I am really sick of people who can not differentiate between helping people who already exist (their genetic code was at least strong enough to express itself, and they are here and need help) and forcing someone into existence. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to deal with. It makes no sense to me to consider them the same thing. Helping someone standing there in my face live is not the same as satisfying the personal desires of a couple to force a child into existence rather than adopt.


I'm all for adoption. You are misrepresenting my point, either because you didn't understand it or for rhetorical reasons.

The point is that helping someone "alive today" and "standing in your face" may result in them having offspring later.

You are making a distinction between helping someone reproduce immediately and helping them reproduce later, and claiming that the second is acceptable to you but the first is not. I'm telling you that, from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes no difference how proximate the help is to the birth.

If you give a little kid a sandwich, and that makes the difference between that kid starving or surviving, and that kid goes on to have offspring, you HAVE helped that person "force a new person into the world," just as much as if you performed IVF or gave them fertility drugs. From the perspective of natural selection, it makes no difference whatsoever which particular events lead to reproductive success- natural selection is a measurement of reproductive fertility and nothing else.


It just is not the same thing and I feel it cheapens human life to say that they are. Treating CF is necessary for an individual survival. Reproduction is not necessary to the survival of the individual.


Individuals do not survive. Genes and gene lineages do. Treating diseases only delays the inevitable death of the individual, it does not prevent it. Evolution cannot be measured in terms of the longevity of an organism; only in terms of the organism's fecundity. Again, you're committing a subtle and convoluted variant of the naturalistic fallacy.

You might has well equate life saving procedures with plastic surgery if you feel that is the case. After all, plastic surgery makes people more attractive, which increases their mating opportunities.

Since that is the only topic of relevance in evolution, then yes, that is a reasonable comparison. Any action that increases fecundity is selectively advantageous, and any action that decreases it is selectively disadvantageous.

That has absolutely no bearing on what we might want to be the case. Our wants and desires are not relevant topics, as far as natural selection is concerned.



You are not going to convince me that eyeglasses, pollution, selective breeding, and medical treatments are "natural."


They are certainly not supernatural. Can you think of a third option?

Note that if you say they are "cultural," you will need to explain why variation in birds' songs and nest shapes, and the shapes, sizes and construction of beaver dams (among other phenomena) do not also fit that category.



I am not going to convince you that they are not.

As these are two fundamentally different conceptions of what natural evolution entails, we are at an end.


Suit yourself. If you change your mind, and would actually like to try to understand what I've been trying to say, rather than just knocking over straw men, I'll be happy to continue. I could even recommend some introductory readings on the topic. This is not the very first time that this issue has been discussed, after all.

KiplingKat872: FloydA:
Can the people who use corrective eyeglasses reproduce without medical assistance? I would argue that nearsightedness can be a limit on fecundity in an environment that lacks corrective lenses. But in this environment, as it exists, where corrective lenses are readily available, nearsightedness is not selected against.

Actually as someone in the thread pointed out yesterday, nearsightedness has the advantage of took making, while farsightedness has an advantage in seeing approaching danger.

A nearsighted person who cannot see approaching predators or other dangers may be killed before reaching reproductive age.

By providing that nearsighted person with corrective eyewear, the optometrist increases the probability that the individual will survive and reproduce.

(If you don't like the nearsightedness example, you can substitute irregular astigmatism and corrective contact lenses.)

Following your logic, as I understand it, by compensating for that "defect" in the person's eyesight, allowing him/her to reach reproductive age and have offspring, we are " forcing people into existence" who would not otherwise have been born because the parent would have succumbed to predation or accident.

We have, by providing eyewear, helped someone reproduce who would otherwise not have been able to do so.

Am I misunderstanding your point?

To me, it seems no less (no more) "natural" for humans to employ technology in order to increase our reproductive success than it is for songbirds to use their calls or flowers to use nectar to attract pollinating insects.

While we may not like the results, that's an entirely different issue than whether or not it is "natural" for us to do so.



Corn was selectively bred by mankind to be dependent on human intervention, it's development taking place outside the control of natural evolution.

I disagree with the bolded part. The evolution of domesticated maize took place in an environment in which humans were the most influential selective filter.

The evolution of cactus took place in an environment in which aridity was the most influential selective filter. The evolution of penguins took place in an environment in which low temperatures and scarcity of terrestrial food resources were the most influential selective filters.

We tend to think that one is different from the other two because we are conscious and acting with intention and foresight, but that difference is mostly an illusion, based on little more than our tendency towards anthropocentrism. From the perspective of maize, the human species is simply a reproductive technology that the maize genes use to their own advantage.


It is just not one that I share. I do not consider medial intervention to be "natural." The lie I draw is helping people who already exist (which is just humane) and forcing people into existence.


The problem I see here is that any medical intervention that takes place prior to the end of reproductive fertility, and that saves the life of a person who "already exists" may result in the increased probability that the individual is able to successfully reproduce. So I think your distinction between "helping people who already exist" and "forcing people into existence" might need further refinement- the line seems to be largely illusory to me.


I do not consider the wishes of people wanting to be parents (but who ignore adoption) to be paramount over someone being able to function normally in our society. Certainly not over people with life threatening illnesses.

I don't think anyone has made the argument that we should use IVF, but not treat people who have life threatening illnesses.

(And just so that I am not misinterpreted, for socio-political reasons I am in favor of lowering human population, so don't assume that I'm arguing from a pro-population growth standpoint. I think there are already too many of us. That's a different issue however.)


Got to go to lecture now. I'll check back later.

KiplingKat872: KiltedBastich: eugenics.

CAN THE PEOPLE WHO USE IVF REPRODUCE WITHOUT MEDICAL ASSISTANCE?


Can the people who use corrective eyeglasses reproduce without medical assistance? I would argue that nearsightedness can be a limit on fecundity in an environment that lacks corrective lenses. But in this environment, as it exists, where corrective lenses are readily available, nearsightedness is not selected against.

Can maize reproduce without human assistance? No, it cannot; the rachis does not shatter, and so the seeds do not plant themselves. But that is not relevant, since maize grows in an environment that includes humans who are willing to cultivate it.

People who need IVF in order to reproduce would certainly be at a terminal selective disadvantage if they lived in an environment that did not include reproductive medicine. But since they live in this environment, where that type of treatment is available, whatever selective challenges they might face elsewhere are beside the point, as far as natural selection is concerned.

This baby is a sin -- says Pope Benedict XVI.

KiplingKat872: I have already defined this this evening. Infertility.

I agree that injury is a grey area, but if for any genetically coded reason a couple is incapable of starting the process of reproduction, then it is it something I don't agree with. The genetic code is so faulty it can't reproduce on its own, then maybe it shouldn't be forced to.

The tree falling thing is a false anology dealing with an existing life in danger, not forcing a life into existance.

And people here keep making that equivilacy: That creating a life through chemical and technological means is the exact same thing ethically and imperatively as saving a preexisting life. That only works if one believes that life does not begin at conception, but exists in the egg and sperm independant of each other. Every sperm is sacred indeed.

I get that you're drawing the line at infertility. I still don't get the "genetic coding" argument. People with inherited disorders who, without medical (i.e., chemical and technological) intervention, would certainly die before adulthood should not, by your reasoning, be allowed to reproduce, yet you seem to be OK with it. Your "genetic coding" argument is flawed.

Asshole says what?

Seriously? the catholic church wants to distance itself further from its parrishoner's mainstream opinion on yet another subject.

/catholic altar boy 30 years ago
//I got better
///IVF gave us a beautiful boy 18 months ago
////halfwit magician who was employed through the use of pink smoke never spoke for me anyway

halfof33: Oh, a Catholic bashing thread for the weekend farkers.

We have not had one of those since Wednesday. Although that was a doozy! Thanks modmins!

We had a thread about Islam on thursday, very few of the spittle soaked anti-religion trolls showed up there.

Weird

Pope bashing != Catholic bashing, but you knew that, didn't you?

For god's sake, the word is tenet! Tenet!

AngryDragon: Can I get excommunicated for calling the pope a douchebag?

Mouth breather?

Retard?

Probably, but I'd have a beer with you.

"Dear Pope--FARK you. I'm the head of my own church now, dillweed".

It's a shame he wasn't so passionate about refraining from raping young boys up the ass.

alternative girlfriend: Not a Catholic or even a theist at all, but you don't see the problems inherent in some of this?

I can see where some organizations would have problems with a society where people could build whatever bodies they wanted, or swap bodies around on a whim. But social barriers change, people adapt. I want to live in a world where biology isn't destiny, and where technology is just one more tool in the toolbox to help people live the lives they want to live. you cannot have racism in a society where skin color is no more permanent than hair color. Gender roles cannot be predetermined when ANYONE can be male, female or even neuter whenever they'd like.

would we still have problems? sure. that's human nature. But they'd be different problems than we've got now. and if we can move minds around between bodies than health care and even death becomes less of a problem. our entire focus changes.

Ahhh, the infallible boy buggery expert has a opinion

Cake Hunter: hubiestubert: How dare people use alternate means than just plain schtupping to get pregnant.

Can't use contraception. Can't use proception. Has the Pope considered that perhaps God gave us the wit to ease conception because that is the means to help these nice folks add more folks to the rolls?

That and gin.

To be fair, if the Pope declared alcohol to contravene "artificial methods to conceive" then Ireland would turn Protestant overnight...

hubiestubert: How dare people use alternate means than just plain schtupping to get pregnant.

Can't use contraception. Can't use proception. Has the Pope considered that perhaps God gave us the wit to ease conception because that is the means to help these nice folks add more folks to the rolls?

That and gin.