4 ms·

How do we know it’s gravely immoral? I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Otherwise, what is immoral about a couple using the

by shwaj 3y ago

How do we know it’s gravely immoral? I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Otherwise, what is immoral about a couple using their own sperm and egg to conceive a child that they otherwise would not have had? I suppose you could say there are many children who need to be adopted, but that reasoning also applies to the decision to have children without IVF.

anon291 3y ago
> I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Alternatively, an interpretation of Aristotelianism and Platonism. There's this weird presumption that religious people mainly use texts, despite the fact that the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, often ignores texts when even considering many modern moral qualms. There seems to be a real desire to reduce modern religions to some kind of magic cult, despite the fact that a lot of modern religions give great weight to secular philosophy. In particular, the Catholic objection to IVF is rooted chiefly in Aristotle's concept of the telos, which is pretty secular. Any text in the Bible that goes along with that is just icing on the cake, not really the main objection.
- shwaj 3y ago
  Interesting. Can you elaborate on the relevance of the telos here?
  - anon291 3y ago
    Tried responding earlier but HN is in the habit of blocking me. Basically... The telos of sex is reproduction. To separate reproduction from sex renders sex meaningless, and thus irrational from an aristotelian perspective. The typical objection is that sex is also for pleasure. However, Aristotle considers base pleasures like sex not worth pursuing. Now another typical objection here is that this could mean that ivf should be pursued while we don't have sex. This is I suppose where some religion may come in since Christianity typically sees sex within marriage as a good to be pursued. Nevertheless, I've not heard any modern argument that says we should eliminate sex and sexual desire and pursue only ivf. So basically, separating sex from reproduction renders sex meaningless and irrational.
Muromec 3y ago
It's immoral in the same way abortion is immoral. If you subscribe to idea that 1) human life is sacred and 2) life starts from the moment egg is fertilized, then both abortion and IVF are immoral. The actual reason religious people are mad at IVF is undefensible in somewhat secular society -- i.e. creating life is domain of god, thus fertilizing those embryos in the first place is bad. But with IVF there is a straw to hang on -- it's never just one egg, it's one (or two) eggs used and the rest discarded after fertilization. Which you can kinda defend as murder.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > life starts from the moment egg is fertilized That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    When you really dig into it, nobody actually believes this. If there was a burning building with a cooler of 10 embryos and 1 baby, and they could only save one, every single one would grab the baby. But it's the only clean line they can draw about when human life becomes human life, so they nominally stick to it even though they don't hold by any of the logical consequences of doing so.
  - Muromec 3y ago
    You can in theory hold such belief without being religious, but yes of course it is. The problem is -- you need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      > otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad. "Which is of course bad" - all these people thinking their personal opinions are universal, unwavering truths...

by shwaj 3y ago

anon291 3y ago

> I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Alternatively, an interpretation of Aristotelianism and Platonism. There's this weird presumption that religious people mainly use texts, despite the fact that the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, often ignores texts when even considering many modern moral qualms. There seems to be a real desire to reduce modern religions to some kind of magic cult, despite the fact that a lot of modern religions give great weight to secular philosophy. In particular, the Catholic objection to IVF is rooted chiefly in Aristotle's concept of the telos, which is pretty secular. Any text in the Bible that goes along with that is just icing on the cake, not really the main objection.

shwaj 3y ago
Interesting. Can you elaborate on the relevance of the telos here?
- anon291 3y ago
  Tried responding earlier but HN is in the habit of blocking me. Basically... The telos of sex is reproduction. To separate reproduction from sex renders sex meaningless, and thus irrational from an aristotelian perspective. The typical objection is that sex is also for pleasure. However, Aristotle considers base pleasures like sex not worth pursuing. Now another typical objection here is that this could mean that ivf should be pursued while we don't have sex. This is I suppose where some religion may come in since Christianity typically sees sex within marriage as a good to be pursued. Nevertheless, I've not heard any modern argument that says we should eliminate sex and sexual desire and pursue only ivf. So basically, separating sex from reproduction renders sex meaningless and irrational.

Muromec 3y ago

It's immoral in the same way abortion is immoral. If you subscribe to idea that 1) human life is sacred and 2) life starts from the moment egg is fertilized, then both abortion and IVF are immoral. The actual reason religious people are mad at IVF is undefensible in somewhat secular society -- i.e. creating life is domain of god, thus fertilizing those embryos in the first place is bad. But with IVF there is a straw to hang on -- it's never just one egg, it's one (or two) eggs used and the rest discarded after fertilization. Which you can kinda defend as murder.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> life starts from the moment egg is fertilized That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect.
- justrealist 3y ago
  When you really dig into it, nobody actually believes this. If there was a burning building with a cooler of 10 embryos and 1 baby, and they could only save one, every single one would grab the baby. But it's the only clean line they can draw about when human life becomes human life, so they nominally stick to it even though they don't hold by any of the logical consequences of doing so.
- Muromec 3y ago
  You can in theory hold such belief without being religious, but yes of course it is. The problem is -- you need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad. "Which is of course bad" - all these people thinking their personal opinions are universal, unwavering truths...