Medical Adultery ?

[McCulloch]

my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

Really?

Are you applying the disciplines of science on the behavior of adultery?

Yup.

"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition. And I think that if you contemplate this for a second or two, you will too.

Two "married" men or two "married" women cannot make a baby together.

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.

How is the term adultery defined? OK, you might think that I am daft. "Don't you know what adultery means?" Is adultery about only sex, procreation or both? If a married person has a sexual relationship with someone who is not his or her spouse, that is called adultery. But what about ways of getting pregnant that do not involve sex? Is it adultery for a physician to perform in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation? Are surrogate mothers committing adultery? Are sperm donors necessarily adulterers? What if it is their wives who collect the samples?

1. Alice's sister cannot keep a pregnancy to term. She offers to carry the embryo created from her sister's egg and her sister's husband, Brad's sperm in her womb for them.
2. Caroline's husband is impotent, but they want to have a baby. She has one of her eggs fertilized by an anonymous donor.
3. In each of the previous cases, the physician doing the procedures is named Dianne.

[bluethread]

Oh the OP?

I'm still sticking with my opinion. Basically based on selfishness (of the patients and medical hucksters) and the poor child of medical adultery that in many cases can never know who their "other" real parent is.

In your opinion is 'mechanical adultery' as great a 'sin' as the regular kind? You know, when a man cheats on his wife or sleeps with another's wife?

Assuming children are happy to be alive, and have loving, wise, and devoted parents, do you think the child of in vitro fertilization wishes he or she had never been born?
How are they different from adopted children in this regard?

It is good to see that someone remembers the OP in the smoke screen of superfluous issues that this thread has become. As has been pointed out adultery is sex between a married individual and someone who is not that individuals spouse. However, limiting the discussion to the sex act and not the consequences of that act is a better example of literalism than is the recognition of the similarity in results of adultery and IVF. Though there is no direct commandment against it, I do tend to agree with the view that IVF is similar in some ways to promiscuity. To the point, the theoretical happiness of some children is an irrelevant emotional appeal. Using that reasoning, one could justify drug addiction on the basis that some children of drug addicts turn out to be productive citizens. Unless one can make a direct connection between IVF and healthy productive children, without countervailing
negative consequences, arguing for IVF as a charitable act for children is a fallacious argument. The difference between adoption and IVF is that the adopted child suffers, if it is not adopted. If there is no IVF, no child suffers.

[Danmark]

It is good to see that someone remembers the OP in the smoke screen of superfluous issues that this thread has become. As has been pointed out adultery is sex between a married individual and someone who is not that individuals spouse. However, limiting the discussion to the sex act and not the consequences of that act is a better example of literalism than is the recognition of the similarity in results of adultery and IVF. Though there is no direct commandment against it, I do tend to agree with the view that IVF is similar in some ways to promiscuity. To the point, the theoretical happiness of some children is an irrelevant emotional appeal. Using that reasoning, one could justify drug addiction on the basis that some children of drug addicts turn out to be productive citizens. Unless one can make a direct connection between IVF and healthy productive children, without countervailing
negative consequences, arguing for IVF as a charitable act for children is a fallacious argument. The difference between adoption and IVF is that the adopted child suffers, if it is not adopted. If there is no IVF, no child suffers.

This is another example of missing the point about adultery. Adultery is a sex act involving a broken promise. It is a betrayal. Assuming both parties to the IVF give knowing consent to the procedure and there is no sexual act it seems the height of overly inclusive logic to call it 'adultery.' It is something else entirely. To call in vitro fertilization "adultery" absurd on its face. There may indeed be ethical issues involved. I do not question that. But to take a swipe at it by claiming it's the same as another man putting his penis into your wife's vagina and ejaculating is not only absurd, but it obfuscates the real ethical issues that may be involved.

[Divine Insight]

I think this discussion reveals the absolute absurdity of this religion, and why so many atheists are simply tired of it.

I mean here we have an entirely faith-based religion that is being seriously questioned as having any validity at all in the first place. Yet what are these religious people actually doing with this religion?

They are attempting to argue that "sins" described in the Bible such as adultery should also apply to entirely different concepts such as INF.

It's like say, "Look, not only do we expect you to believe in our risen demigod savior, but we're also going to use this religion as an excuse to paint all manner of things was being sins that are against the will of our God."

It's bad enough this religion is arrogant enough to demand that everyone who doesn't believe in it is a heathen who refuses to obey God, but all the while they continue to make out like everything we do is a major sin.


~~~~

And this drives home the issue I keep bringing up repeatedly. This religion isn't about repentance and forgiveness of some imagined God. It's about worshiping the opinions of Christians when it even comes to dictating what this God even considers to be a sin.

No stem cell research, no in vitro fertilization, no genetic modifications of any kind, not even to prevent or cure diseases. No teaching of evolution in schools. Only the Gospels and creation should be taught, etc.

Where does it end? If Christians had their way then anyone who isn't bearing witness to Jesus as The Christ and actively preaching the Gospels in his name is a heathen who obviously refuses to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and is the only truth, and way to eternal life.

And all of this must be believed without a shred of evidence while we renounce science as nothing more than the evil creation of mankind meddling in affairs that he has no business meddling in.

I mean seriously. The religion has no ground to stand on yet what do we see? Followers of this religion going around pronouncing all manner of modern scientific medical procedures to be sins of the highest order that must be stopped and repented lest the heathen offenders will be cast into a hellfire that no one can even show exists.

This is nothing more than a very powerful modern day superstition.

[Danmark]

I think this discussion reveals the absolute absurdity of this religion, and why so many atheists are simply tired of it.

I mean here we have an entirely faith-based religion that is being seriously questioned as having any validity at all in the first place. Yet what are these religious people actually doing with this religion?

They are attempting to argue that "sins" described in the Bible such as adultery should also apply to entirely different concepts such as INF.

It's like say, "Look, not only do we expect you to believe in our risen demigod savior, but we're also going to use this religion as an excuse to paint all manner of things was being sins that are against the will of our God."

It's bad enough this religion is arrogant enough to demand that everyone who doesn't believe in it is a heathen who refuses to obey God, but all the while they continue to make out like everything we do is a major sin.


~~~~

And this drives home the issue I keep bringing up repeatedly. This religion isn't about repentance and forgiveness of some imagined God. It's about worshiping the opinions of Christians when it even comes to dictating what this God even considers to be a sin.

No stem cell research, no in vitro fertilization, no genetic modifications of any kind, not even to prevent or cure diseases. No teaching of evolution in schools. Only the Gospels and creation should be taught, etc.

Where does it end? If Christians had their way then anyone who isn't bearing witness to Jesus as The Christ and actively preaching the Gospels in his name is a heathen who obviously refuses to accept that Jesus is the Son of God and is the only truth, and way to eternal life.

And all of this must be believed without a shred of evidence while we renounce science as nothing more than the evil creation of mankind meddling in affairs that he has no business meddling in.

I mean seriously. The religion has no ground to stand on yet what do we see? Followers of this religion going around pronouncing all manner of modern scientific medical procedures to be sins of the highest order that must be stopped and repented lest the heathen offenders will be cast into a hellfire that no one can even show exists.

This is nothing more than a very powerful modern day superstition.

Bravo! I was trying to find a way to say something similar without making a negative blanket statement about religion and the type of thinking it too frequently requires. Well done!

There are many great religious thinkers; men and women possessed of great logic and ability, but none of them would use their gifts to contort facts and logic into the grotesquerie required to claim in vitro fertilization is a form of adultery. Only a certain crippled sense of religious logic that ignores facts and common sense can come up with such a monstrosity of irrational thought. This kind of mental slavery that some religions want to foist upon free men and free thought needs to be batted down at every opportunity; crushed into the nothingness it represents.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 39 by 99percentatheism]

I work now among almost exclusively non-believers.

As do I - and likely most of us that work. Based on this experience, I question the legitimacy of many claims of such a negative manner. Perception is the key.

By the way, whatever happened to the OP?

Seems to have been address appropiately.

[bluethread]

This kind of mental slavery that some religions want to foist upon free men and free thought needs to be batted down at every opportunity; crushed into the nothingness it represents.

Mental slavery! How is this hyperbole any different than the hyperbole of "Medical Adultery"? Are those who propose this latter imagery imprisoning others to accept it for life at the threat of bloody floggings or death? Note, I am using the definition of slavery that is required by many on this site. By the way, is the requirement that one use that definition of slavery also a form of "mental slavery"? The repeated knee jerk reactions that find hyperbole from others as offense, while freely using hyperbole to do so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[Danmark]

Mental slavery! How is this hyperbole any different than the hyperbole of "Medical Adultery"? Are those who propose this latter imagery imprisoning others to accept it for life at the threat of bloody floggings or death? Note, I am using the definition of slavery that is required by many on this site. By the way, is the requirement that one use that definition of slavery also a form of "mental slavery"? The repeated knee jerk reactions that find hyperbole from others as offense, while freely using hyperbole to do so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I confess that highfalutin prose is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Where you go wrong is your comparison of prose style with faulty logic. I readily admit my stylistic indulgence, but it can't be compared to absurd comparison Mr. 99 makes. One is the fault of bad art, the other bad thinking.

[bluethread]

I confess that highfalutin prose is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Where you go wrong is your comparison of prose style with faulty logic. I readily admit my stylistic indulgence, but it can't be compared to absurd comparison Mr. 99 makes. One is the fault of bad art, the other bad thinking.

OK, so let's focus on the "bad thinking" and not the hyperbole. Let's also try to set aside the pet diatribes regarding sin, hell, evangelism, evil, etc. First, let's make sure we are in agreement on what we are discussing. Would you accept that adultery is a sexual relationship that is in violation of a marital contract and fornication is any sexual relationship outside of a marital contract? If not, please propose your amendments. If so, do you accept that these two are bad things? No reference to a deity or doctrine at this point, just establishing a basis for discussion.

[Danmark]

I confess that highfalutin prose is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Where you go wrong is your comparison of prose style with faulty logic. I readily admit my stylistic indulgence, but it can't be compared to absurd comparison Mr. 99 makes. One is the fault of bad art, the other bad thinking.

OK, so let's focus on the "bad thinking" and not the hyperbole. Let's also try to set aside the pet diatribes regarding sin, hell, evangelism, evil, etc. First, let's make sure we are in agreement on what we are discussing. Would you accept that adultery is a sexual relationship that is in violation of a marital contract and fornication is any sexual relationship outside of a marital contract? If not, please propose your amendments. If so, do you accept that these two are bad things? No reference to a deity or doctrine at this point, just establishing a basis for discussion.

Would you accept that adultery is a sexual relationship that is in violation of a marital contract and fornication is any sexual relationship outside of a marital contract?
Yes, and I agree that violating a promise is a 'bad thing.'
No, I don't agree that sexual relations outside a marital contract is necessarily a 'bad thing.'

I don't see the relevance of this to in vitro fertilization, but I assume you are leading to that.

[Strider324]

bluethread scribed:

Would you accept that adultery is a sexual relationship that is in violation of a marital contract...?

I would, if you agree with Jesus that it also includes those who divorce and remarry due to anything other than infidelity.