3 ms·
> I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Alternatively, an interpretation of Aristotelianism and Platonism. There's this weird p
by 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 agoInteresting. Can you elaborate on the relevance of the telos here?
- anon291 3y agoTried 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.