‘We wanted to set up something where we would act as a go-between and where couples could meet potential donors face-to-face to work out how they would work things out. We also want to save people from having to explain their situation: that they are gay and using a donor.’
~Natalie Drew explaining why she and her partner opened up Britain’s first gay-only fertility center, Daily Mail, March 22
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is painful. Children are not a commodity to be bought, arranged for, and created and destroyed at will. Men are not “donors.” They are supposed to be fathers. Children deserve a mother and a father living together under one roof. Period.
Sure, kill one set of babies and charge money to create another set, then destroy any of those embryos or twins. So nice. Being gay makes it less murder than being straight, maybe. You can’t explain your gay but you let other women kill their babies and create your own with a donor. What a wonderful society we have. It’s not any different than heterosexuals doing the same thing, it just sounds oh so politically correct.
Nice – sexual discrimination based on orientation – exactly by those who fought against it.
—–
Declaring gay marriage the same as heterosexual marriage actually institutionalizes a market in humanity, because it declares a family can be created by two naturally sterile partners. It’s all about political power.
The reality is – there’s profit in such situations, because 3rd parties must be involved for children to be created. Whether it’s donation, surrogacy, IVF techniques etc. – all basically introduce a 3rd party between the two individuals and the child.
When a husband and wife produce a child – the cost is free. When two gay individuals produce a child – there is money to be made.
Guess which one can be exploited?
The abortion industry exploits the presence of the child for profit already, so this too is about control and profit making. Eventually there will exist a group that will seek to control populations entirely and having children will be overseen – oh wait – that’s what China already does.
I find it rather fascinating that those who encourage abortion and gay marriage often see nothing wrong with China, and by refuse to speak out against it, condone it’s horrible practices.
If you want to tell me I’m wrong – you’ll have to make a solid logical case for why I’m wrong – but I won’t accept calling the possibility absurd – it’s only a matter of time, and lack of will to stop it.
And ninek – you got it right – IVF would be practically impossible if it were not for being able to abort children, and use their body parts.
If Christians opened up an IVF clinic that catered only to married, heterosexual couples, the cries of outrage would be audible in the U.S.
Why is this clinic acceptable? It’s still discrimination.
So what are the parents of these children going to tell them? That their father was sperm donor 114C or whatever and they picked him on the basis of his physical characteristics? Kinda sad.
WOW, lets throw away marriage and family and preborn babies all at one time…
The whole thing is totally repugnant.
According to the article, the couple was warned that they could not turn away heterosexual couples, as it would be in violation of British law.
JoAnna says:
March 23, 2011 at 10:54 am
If Christians opened up an IVF clinic that catered only to married, heterosexual couples, the cries of outrage would be audible in the U.S.
Why is this clinic acceptable? It’s still discrimination.
Well, to tell you the truth, similar event has actually happened – all UK’s Catholic Adoption agencies were shut down, because they refused adoption to gay couples. I see this as both violation of religious freedom and also a lack of common sense and compassion for children…. What’s better – let Catholic adoption agencies place children with loving married couples and gay couples using other agencies, or shut down these agencies altogether and have hundreds of children miss out on a loving home? In this case political correctness and homosexual agenda is apparently more important, than wellbeing of children.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/08/19/last-catholic-adoption-agency-loses-appeal/
ninek: Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see anything in the article about IVF or destroying embryos. Getting pregnant through artificial insemination isn’t the same thing as IVF. I don’t see anything that suggests that the women who created this clinic support abortion, either.
mama3, how is not being married “throwing away” marriage and families and babies? It’s not like they’re trying to stop anyone from getting married and having babies.
That is child abuse, pure and simple. Research has overwhelmingly shown that children do best in homes with their own biological mother and father. To intentionally deprive a child of a mother or a father is a grave injustice to the child, who becomes another casualty in the culture of the groin that is the homosexual “movement”
First commentor said it: Children are a commodity.
Infants can be bought, sold, consumed, or discarded. On a market, for a price, for anyone who wants to deny natural biology. Sterile same-sex couples can buy an infant or a zygote; fertile women can pay to have a child killed in the womb.
Without any discernment, care or protection for the human child and what is due to her.
There is nothing in the article that rules out IVF use in the near or distant future if and when the business expands. AND, twin and triplet reduction is occuring in natural and sperm-donor pregnancies already. Also, if less healthy children were aborted, many lesbian and gay couples would be thrilled to adopt infants.
The fact that they have opened a gay sperm donor clinic is proof of their support of abortion, or else they’d be promoting adoption instead of profiting by the dearth of healthy infants who were killed by abortion.
That being said, I have no problem with putting children in gay households (especially girls with gay male couples doesn’t bother me a whit), but a business should be able to operate within its own religiously based philosophy. There is such a thing as competition and no one likes a monopoly (unless you’re playing the game Monopoly on a rainy day).
I don’t force a kosher Jewish deli to serve me a ham sandwich or a cheeseburger, nor should I.
“Children deserve a mother and a father living together under one roof. Period.” – perhaps you should remind a number of republican politicians and people like Glenn Beck of that Jennifer. Good job Rush hasn’t had children huh?
“children do best in homes with their own biological mother and father” – perhaps you could work with Jennifer on this Bruce.
“You can’t explain your gay” – what does that mean ninek?
“When a husband and wife produce a child – the cost is free. When two gay individuals produce a child – there is money to be made.” – and when nice married heterosexual couples are infertile, what happens there?
“I have no problem with putting children in gay households (especially girls with gay male couples doesn’t bother me a whit)” – so not quite ‘no problem’ then?
“So what are the parents of these children going to tell them? That their father was sperm donor 114C or whatever and they picked him on the basis of his physical characteristics? Kinda sad.”
I suppose they tell the children the same thing everyone who uses a donor tells their children. Don’t lots of hetero couples use sperm donors for one reason or another? Maybe not lots, but it happens. You against that too? Is that “kinda sad?”
Where you been, Hal?
Reality, maybe you want to read the quote and the article as to why this gay-friendly fertility business was founded: because they were soooo uncomfortable telling a regular fertility specialist that they were gay.
No problem – why do YOU see a problem with two gay men raising a little girl?? I would think they’d all find it very enriching. You don’t seem to have any point. As usual, I suppose.
Good night all!
Did you read the article ninek?
“much of the current advice is focused on heterosexual couples”
“she was told that she wasn’t eligible for treatment because she hadn’t had sex with a man within the last 10 years”
“they will refer to the person carrying the child and not the partner, which makes them feel excluded”
“A lot of the criteria is outdated and hasn’t moved with the times”
“The pair say they would not turn away a heterosexual couple, but the clinic’s priority is people in same-sex relationships.”
So – they did not have a problem telling a regular fertility specialist that they were gay, as you claim. They had a problem with how they were treated by some regular fertility specialists.
I see no problem with two gay men raising a little girl. Or a little boy. The fact that you felt the need to add “especially girls with gay male couples doesn’t bother me a whit” indicates that you prefer that to two gay men raising a little boy. Why is that? Do you fear that two gay men adopting a boy might be secret nambla members? Do you think they will try to make the boy gay? Being gay isn’t a choice and most homosexuals would not want a heterosexual boy to ‘turn gay’ because they know it will only make his life more difficult because of the remnants of homophobia which still exist.
Oooh, LOTS of misinformation in “Realty’s” post above. Intentionally denying a child a father or a mother is tantamount to abuse, and is a grave injustice to the child. Research has confirmed, again and again, that the best environment to raise a child is in a home with biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. THIS is what society should support and promote, not “alternatives” like this, which studies have also shown to be detrimental to a child’s emotional well-being. You are also mistaken when you speak of homosexual “parents’ not “turning” their children homosexual. Studies have shown a much higher rate of homosexuality among children of homosexual parents. Also, you’re really quite ignorant of the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of “ex” homosexuals who have left that disordered and destructive lifestyle behind. So, you’re welcome.
– and when nice married heterosexual couples are infertile, what happens there?
Reality,
I don’t know about Non-Catholics, but I do know that Catholics DO have options when it comes to infertility:
1. There are Catholic-approved methods for trying to find out why one is infertile and dealing with it.
2. Some couples just figure they weren’t meant to have kids (I know at least one like that, by the way).
3. Others adopt (even some couples who can have kids have been known to adopt).
And how about some people go into ministry, some become foster parents, some make the community better, some do things with helping their family.
I know of someone who spent her life in service to others – and she made such a big impact, that at her funeral we found out this beautiful life she had of service to another family. Truly beautiful. She was so loving, giving, prayerful and beautiful (inside and out). She made a huge impact that will be felt for generations. And all due to giving her energy to others, instead of trying to bend reality to herself. She was an amazing lady.
Bruce,
I do this with prochoicers, and so I’ll do this with you:
What reliable research can you cite that proves your statements?
I ask this because Miss Drew, one of the partners, says this:
‘There is a lot of research to say that children brought up by same-sex couples are just as happy as children from traditional families.
Were I the reporter, I would have looked for those stats, but there was no questioning in the article, so we should all just assume that Miss Drew is right.
So prove her wrong.
“LOTS of misinformation in “Realty’s” (sic) post above” – Ha, you wish!
“denying a child a father or a mother is tantamount to abuse, and is a grave injustice to the child. Research has confirmed, again and again”, “studies have also shown to be detrimental to a child’s emotional well-being”, “You are also mistaken when you speak of homosexual “parents’ not “turning” their children homosexual” – according to who? The ‘American Family Association’?
“the best environment to raise a child is in a home with biological parents in a low-conflict marriage” – like I said, go tell republican politicians and the likes of Glenn Beck, they are all such outstanding examples of this! :-)
“there are literally tens of thousands of “ex” homosexuals who have left that disordered and destructive lifestyle behind” – no, there are some ‘pray the gay away’ homosexuals who either secretly continue their homosexual activity despite claiming to be ‘cured’ of it, or they live a straight life for a certain period of time (get married, raise kids) and then revert to their true nature big time. So, you’re fooling yourself.
Nor is it a ‘disordered’ or ‘destructive’ lifestyle. The only things which are ‘destructive’ about it is the ugliness of homophobia.
Well MIT, I think you’ll find that the non-catholic ones – and even some catholic ones – follow a path where “there is money to be made”.
Reality,
My post wasn’t about the money, my post was about the practicing Roman Catholic Christian Church perspective so you can see there ARE options for those facing infertility…and others have added to that list. (Shoot, you don’t have to be Catholic to look into those options, I just came from it from that perspective because that’s what I knew…I’m not likely to say something I can’t back up…not the way I operate).
Do you prefer people not to have ANY options except for IVF and sperm banks? I thought people would like knowing those aren’t the only options out there…but maybe I’m wrong.
MIT, my initial response was to Chris Arsenault saying “When a husband and wife produce a child – the cost is free. When two gay individuals produce a child – there is money to be made. I was pointing out that heterosexual couples can and do follow the same path as gay couples.
Yes, you are correct, there are other options. And they are fine when they are suitable for the people concerned.
I was merely pointing out that Chris‘s attempt to tarnish gay couples was fallacious.
Reality,
The fact that many, many people of all political and religious stripes fail to live up to their responsibilities as parents and spouses does not change the immovable fact that children deserve a mother and father who are married to each other, living together under one roof in a stable, loving home.
I realize that may sound so idealistic as to seem unreasonable to some people, but I refuse to lower the standard of what children deserve and are, in fact, entitled to, simply because generations of people have come to think it’s perfectly acceptable to place their own wants and needs above the needs of their children. It’s time for people to grow up again. Life goes forward, not backward, and when you bring children into this world, your obligations are toward them.
As far as IVF goes, I will be the one to say that it is morally wrong, even for heterosexual married couples. It is always morally wrong because it separates the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive aspect. Sex is designed to be life-giving and totally free of restriction, which is why God ordained it for marriage between a man and a woman. Baby-making outside of the marital act is wrong because it leads to babies being treated as a commodity, which is exactly what has happened.
Babies can be manufactured now, with specific qualities chosen or weeded-out, like purchasing an automobile according to your exact specifications. That’s not love, and that’s surely not respecting the sanctity of human life. Children are a gift to be accepted without conditions. IVF has also led to the inexcusable destruction of “extra” embryos that are discarded or left frozen in limbo for decades. Again, because we’re just manufacturing kids, and only when we want them, the way we want them, entirely on our terms. It’s self-centered and self-serving.
I’ll also be the one to say that it’s not in the interest of children to be raised by homosexual parents. God’s plan for the family is father and mother, period. There’s no way two women can show a little boy how to be a man; or two men can teach a young girl what it means to be a woman. Homosexual partnerships necessarily exclude the opposite gender and declare it unnecessary and unwanted by default. What message does that send to children? Two moms of a little boy… “sorry, Jimmy, but we didn’t think you really needed a Dad or deserved one. Men aren’t really needed for much beyond their sperm.” What’s he supposed to think of his own manhood or future fatherhood?
Parenting isn’t about what we want. It’s about what children deserve and need and what we are obligated by God to give them.
What you wish for is not unreasonable Jennifer, just unrealistic. How healthy is it for a child to be in a home where one parent abuses the other, is a philanderer or has a drug addiction? Then there are those who simply detest each other and the child can feel it.
Your opposition to IVF is purely faith based then. Not everyone will agree with you there of course, even those of faith.
“God’s plan for the family is father and mother, period.” – ‘god’s plan’ doesn’t apply to anyone except those of staunch faith.
“There’s no way two women can show a little boy how to be a man; or two men can teach a young girl what it means to be a woman” – friends? Relatives? ‘raised by a village’ concept?
“Homosexual partnerships necessarily exclude the opposite gender and declare it unnecessary and unwanted by default.” – that simply is not true. Your statement is false and smacks of base homophobia.
I have no obligation to any ‘god’.
Reality, your inability to prove Jennifer wrong about the fact that homosexual partnerships necessarily exclude the opposite gender, etc, beyond calling her comment “smacking of homophobia”… smacks of heterophobia. Either that or just plain ol sheer ignorance of relationships in general. I tend to believe it’s the latter because I find it hard to believe that someone can’t see for themselves that a homosexual partnership does exclude the opposite sex. The “gay agenda” is all about forcing people to believe that hetersexuality isn’t necessary to be happy.
Raising children is a blessing. They’re a blessing to the two people that created that child and by default, a blessing to society. However, it’s not societies responsibility to raise others children and I wouldn’t want to have to compromise my integrity, standards nor morals to try to help a homosexual couple in raising their child simply because they want me to be the example to set for their girl. Therefore, most homosexual couples would naturally set that “village” up by getting their non-gay friends to be that role model… which just perpetuates the homosexual agenda as it being “normal”… when it’s clearly NOT.
I’m a firm believer that children are born with the natural instinct to know that a “family” means mom and dad and they have to be taught that two mommies or two daddies is “normal”. Just like children are born with the natural instinct to recoil at the idea of abortion and have to be taught that being pro-abortion is ok.
Break apart the natural family unit and society will fall.
Listen to this kid’s testimony and ask yourselves if you’d want him for a son. Smart, eloquent, respectful, and–oh–raised by a gay couple. Let’s put a face to the gay childrearing movement and all those you condemn, shall we?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/zach-wahls-defends-gay-ma_n_818194.html
Oh, and Bruce–here’s some actual research done on the impact of gay parenting on a child’s wellbeing. Surprise surprise, no big difference.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/demography/v047/47.3.rosenfeld.pdf
“prove Jennifer wrong about the fact that homosexual partnerships necessarily exclude the opposite gender, etc,” – er, Jennifer is making a claim for which there is no proof. If there is it is up to her to provide it. Most homosexual couples have a number of females in their circle so to claim that they are excluded is absurd.
“I find it hard to believe that someone can’t see for themselves that a homosexual partnership does exclude the opposite sex.” – again, you obviously have almost zero knowledge of homosexual couples.
“The “gay agenda” is all about enabling people to believe that hetersexuality (sic) isn’t necessary to be happy.’ – that’s more accurate.
“I wouldn’t want to have to compromise my integrity, standards nor morals to try to help a homosexual couple in raising their child simply because they want me to be the example to set for their girl.” – I very much doubt that you would be invited to do so.
“Therefore, most homosexual couples would naturally set that “village” up by getting their non-gay friends to be that role model… which just perpetuates the homosexual agenda as it being “normal”… when it’s clearly NOT.” – so their non-gay friends are? What exactly? Having non-gay friends in their ‘village’ demonstrates that there are all sorts of ‘normal’. I very much doubt that they would deride their friends heterosexuality or refer to it as abnormal.
“I’m a firm believer that children are born with the natural instinct to know that a “family” means mom and dad” – you apparently haven’t studied the psychology of innate and learned behaviors.
“and they have to be taught that two mommies or two daddies is “normal”.” – no, the context within which they find themselves in a stable and happy environment is what will determine what they consider ‘normal’.
“Just like children are born with the natural instinct to recoil at the idea of abortion and have to be taught that being pro-abortion is ok.” – that’s just nonsense.
“Break apart the natural family unit and society will fall.” – whose ‘natural’ family unit?
Reality,
I don’t understand your dig at Glenn Beck and “other Republicans”. Beck and his wife had difficulty conceiving and adopted their son from a very young mother. Then, as often happens, they were doubly blessed with a daughter. McCain adopted an (Asian) Indian girl, Tom Delay a Nicarauguan girl. Are you against adoption???
My comments have nothing to do with where children may come from Hans, they were all in response to Jennifer saying “Children deserve a mother and a father living together under one roof”. Most republican politicians and people such as Glenn Beck have been married more than once so for many Jennifer‘s exhortation does not apply. So no, I am not against adoption.
Well, Jennifer’s right. Children do deserve a mother and a father living in the same home. But we don’t all get what we deserve. Beck says himself he was a “dirtbag” at the time of his divorce. He hit bottom and changed. Making past mistakes doesn’t make you a hypocrite, if you learned from them.
What, like Rush Limbaugh?
Seems like the only thing republicans have learned is ‘sin, sin, sin’, seek redemption, go to heaven.
Now that’s hypocrisy.
Can’t argue too much. All I can say in Rush’s case is it’s a matter of “try, try again”. :)
There is one very positive thing about these pregnancies: they are unlikely to be aborted. One would have to be extremely perverse indeed to go to all the trouble of being inseminated by a donor and then aborting the pregnancy!
It is also possible that children growing up in two-mommy families will be LESS prejudiced against males than other children. After all, when mommy is mad at mommy she isn’t going to gripe about “the way men are!” Too often, heterosexual women trash men as a sex whenever they are mad at the particular men in their lives. Children growing up in lesbian homes are likely to know that women squabble with each other and that all faults can’t be laid at the feet of the supposedly “beastly” man.
Reality said – Seems like the only thing republicans have learned is ‘sin, sin, sin’, seek redemption, go to heaven.
You forgot the repentance part (or did you include that in the redemption?).
Definitely better than sin, sin, sin, ignore God, then go to hell.
BTW – election for heaven is by God’s grace – the only aspect we control is freely choosing when the gift is offered, to accept it. If others don’t want to accept salvation – that’s up to them.
Question – since when have Republican party and the Body of Christ been interchangeable? As usual – overly broad brushstrokes to paint straw-men.
Alan – biologically you may have been a sperm donor, but fathering – no. When it comes to humans, fathering is more than biology, and to say otherwise simply reveals your immaturity/(ignorance?).
I’m confident many lawyers were involved in your activities – and you had to sign many documents disavowing parental responsibilities. I think your boasting simply proves the point I made above – 3rd parties profit by squeezing between parents who are not eternally committed to each other.
That’s the same situation when abortion comes into play – and the child pays the ultimate price – their life. For the parents (or maybe just the mother) – their child’s worth is valued at the price of the abortion.
Eventually children figure out parental motivations, just about the time they are solidifying their world-views. While it may seem you’re being compassionate in supporting whatever ideology/religious obsession you are pursuing, I’m confident your biological children will be left wondering why you never fully loved them.
It’s not dogmatic to understand the fundamental need of humans is genuine, authentic love.
But lawyers can’t make money off that.
Your brave new world looks more like a degenerate amusement park.
But then again, there’s nothing new here.
Reality,
No, in fact, God’s plan does apply to everyone, whether they believe it or not or like it or not. God is God; we are not. He made us; we did not make ourselves. He is all-knowing; we clearly are not. He knows for what purposes He made us; it is not ours to decide to change those purposes.
Villages raising children? It is not my friends or relatives job to raise my children! That obligation is mine and my husband’s. If we require the influence of friends of the opposite gender in order to provide what our children need, then clearly what’s wrong is US. A problem that is solved by following God’s plan in the first place: father and mother living together under the same roof raising children. There is just no reasoning around the truth that children require a father and a mother. The homosexual community would like to eradicate that truth but it will always be true.
And I’m not sure why you don’t understand the obvious: homosexual relationships exclude the opposite gender. Gay women reject men; gay men reject women. That’s obvious. That’s what makes it homosexual. What message does that send to children? It sends the message that men and women do not need each other to be complete. Bristle at the thought if you want, but the fact is, God made men and women for each other and we do complete each other – physically, sexually, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Men and women together are the two halves of the whole.
If there were not important differences between the sexes and if those differences did not come together in a mutually beneficial way, then why bother making two different sexes at all? Why not just make one homogenous, ambiguous person? God in his wisdom made man and woman, and He made them for each other and our humanity only finds its complete expression when men and women come together. THAT is what children need, deserve, and what we are obligated by God to give them. Anything less or other than that only serves our disordered and selfish wants.
Fantasy’s comments are full of self-projection.
I know two lesbian couples with sons, one couple I know well enough to comment. They thought they could ignore the male and female roles, that they are merely oppressive social constructs that are old fashioned and must be eradicated (reverse tolerance, anyone?). Guess what they are discovering?? Their son is a suprisingly masculine little person who will not be confined by their own willful aims for him. Are they horrified? No, in fact they are delighted! He is an awesome little guy and a precious member of their family. They love him and if he wants to wear blue, point at trucks, and point a stick at you and say bang, they can see that he’s thriving, happy, and full of love. His giggles disprove all of Fantasy’s ideas, thank God. Thank the God who created us to be who we are and delights in us no matter what.
Marauder,
On this very issue, we went from “IT TAKES A FAMILY” to IT TAKES A VILLIAGE”, that notion in itself devalues marriage, along with the premeditated exclusion of the other sex in a homo couple. This devalues Marriage. It isn’t complex.
BTW: Why do you suppose the men and women have parts that can so happily merge to form wonderful little versions of themselves??? hmmm A Godly Plan maybe???
You’re right, M, no one is stopping these two women from procreating thier own little offspring, Wonder why they NEED to use some non-natural means….
It is supposedly who they are naturally right? Wouldn’t “NATURE” take care of them?
You know what, there are absolutely other options for infertile couples than IVF.
I’m against IVF/sperm banks because, other than the fact that I wouldn’t want some stranger’s sperm inside of me, men and women play God with human lives.
The reality is, the children who are conceived but not wanted are aborted. Children are created then destroyed at the whim of the parents or doctors.
Besides, and this especially goes for Christians and other pro-lifers, if we truly are pro-life and find we cannot have children of our own, there are millions of mothers aborting children that could be adopted. If we advocate adoption as an option, we should be willing to open our homes to these little ones.
God has a reason for everything.
It seems like it would appeal to the eugenic mindset because she gets to pick a dad’s qualities based solely on the qualities and not whether he finds her attractive. Plenty of guys with some good qualities like health, height, preferred hair/eye color, educated etc. would be willing to donate sperm for women that they would never consider marrying. The ladies are getting a good deal. Not so sure about the guys. I don’t think they will be able to buy quality as easily. The will have to pay quite a premium for eggs/surrogate from a woman with qualities as good as the lesbians can buy on the cheap.
I have seen some studies that point out that some kids who find out they were so conceived really wanted to find their genetic parents similar to the way adopted kids want to find their real parents.
“carder says:
Where you been, Hal?”
Been weening myself from the fasinating conversation here.
Chris, ok, for you the repentance part is included in redemption. But that’s just a fantasy anyway, there is no different outcome compared to those who “ignore god”. The point is that those who most espouse ‘Family values’ (meaning patriarchy) tend to not be so good at living those values.
“since when have Republican party and the Body of Christ been interchangeable?” – never! You can’t exchange the tangible with the non-existent.
Jennifer, you are free to believe your little imaginary fable and its self-proclaimed existence but that doesn’t make it real.
Some of the safest and most successful societies have been those where there is an element of ‘raised by the village’. Having friends or family interact with your children or care for them when circumstances require it is a small example of the village concept. Even going to school, there are influences and the imparting of knowledge.
“Gay women reject men; gay men reject women. That’s obvious.” – incorrect! The vast majority of gay and lesbian people have good friends and family of the opposite sex. They are not rejected or excluded. Just because they form loving relationships with the same sex does not mean they reject the rest.
The rest of your comment doesn’t even warrant a response.
What drugs are you on ninek? If you are referring to me when you say ‘Fantasy’, how on earth did you get the idea that I would be less than happy with the situation you describe? It proves that lesbians don’t ‘reject’ men and that they are capable of raising healthy and well balanced children, just like I’ve been saying. That little boys giggles support my case.
Reality,
There is nothing imaginary or fable-ish about what I’ve said. You are free to reject God, but even you cannot will Him into nonexistence. You will find this out eventually; hopefully on this side of the grave.
“Gay men reject women; gay women reject men. This is obvious” Absolutely true! Having friends and family of the opposite gender does not negate my statement. Men partnering with men, having sexual relations with men and not women is by definition a rejection of women, and vice versa. That’s what makes it homosexual! It has nothing to do with their friendships or their family, but their choice of a “mate.” I say that loosely because men cannot have men for their mate and women cannot mate with women. Men and women can only mate with the opposite sex. Without the unique attributes the opposite brings, there is no wholeness. The body can’t walk with two left feet. Man was made for woman, and woman was made for man. It’s how God made us.
You say the rest of my comment doesn’t warrant a response, but I suspect the truth is that there is no response you can offer, because what I said is true.
God bless you, Reality. May the Light shine on the darkness in your mind and heart, so that you will see God for Who He really is. He loves you.
Reality,
The endpoint of raising well-adjusted children is well-adjusted adulthood, not the giggles of little boys whose biological development has not yet run up hard against their mothers’ lesbianism or their fathers’ homosexuality.
The problem with gay/lesbian marriage is that these arrangements treat mothers and fathers as optional accessories instead of necessities. Therein lies the hostility you deny.
Get a new handle that is more apropos. I suggest FANTASY.
Fantasy,
I hope what you’re having is legal. The point of my little anecdote was that you can’t dictate a child’s personality and “neuter” him. My point was not that his happiness proves men are obsolete. However, if you are male, I might make an exception, just this once. ;>) !
My parents wanted me to be one of those gentle little wallflower types, and I think you might guess that didn’t work out. :>) ! But if chocolate is a drug, mea culpa.
You are free to believe in god, but even you cannot will ‘him’ into existence. You will find this out eventually; hopefully on this side of the grave because you sure won’t find anything the other side.
Perhaps if you said that gay men reject having sex with women your claim would begin to make sense because they don’t reject them in any other way. Do I reject women because I only have sex with one? No, I have loving and welcome female friends and family.
“I say that loosely because men cannot have men for their mate and women cannot mate with women. Men and women can only mate with the opposite sex” – the evidence says otherwise.
“Without the unique attributes the opposite brings, there is no wholeness” – every person is unique, regardless of gender. You are not any authority on what makes people ‘whole’.
“The body can’t walk with two left feet” – well it could actually. People with all sorts of podiatric and orthopedic differences achieve ambulatory progress.
“It’s how God made us” – waffle. That’s a belief, not scientifically factual.
“I suspect the truth is that there is no response you can offer, because what I said is true” – rubbish, it was a ramble of faith-based nonsense.
That being said: If the cessation of abortion outpaces a possible the increase of heterosexual marriage and a decrease in gay pairings, we must be prepared, if we are pro-life and against abortion, to accept more gay couples as parents. In other words, if abortion decreases dramatically, and all the heterosexual married couples get all the babies they want, leaving many in need of homes, it might be better for some children to be placed in a gay household rather than an old fashioned orphanage. However, the concept of an orphanage isn’t bad per se, but if we use them again, they have to be run better than in the past. No one wants little kids working in factories.
That being said: a gay couple isn’t ready to adopt ONLY because they are gay. Homes should be evaluated to ensure they are clean enough and that kids will get care and education. Many straight couples are in no position to adopt either, so we can’t just toss kids willy nilly anywhere. Hopefully, we will, as a society do a much better job caring for children in the present and future than we have in the recent past.
“That’s a belief, not scientifically factual.”
Is that a scientific fact?
Reality, if you have a good argument against the existence of God, I would love to hear it. If you would like an argument for, I would be happy to provide one.
“I say that loosely because men cannot have men for their mate and women cannot mate with women. Men and women can only mate with the opposite sex” – the evidence says otherwise.
Wait, what? There is evidence that says men can mate with men and women can mate with women? Even the most ardent supporters of homosexual actions would never say anything like this. I have to believe this is a misreading of what ninek said…
Actually, Bobby, it wasn’t ninek, it was me. But still, I agree with you. I had no idea that men were now able to make babies with other men, and women with other women. Someone alert the media.
And yes, Reality, please do provide your proof that God does not exist. Then do me a favor: make a single blade of grass. All by yourself. From nothing. Not from chemicals or compounds that already exist, but from nothing. CREATE something, anything,from nothing. Create life and give it intelligence, personality, the most amazingly complex and beautiful DNA structure you can imagine, give it emotion, reason, and the ability to reproduce.
Let me know how that works out for you. Meanwhile, I’ll just be praising God for His marvelous works.
Well Gerard, perhaps you should tell ninek that. She’s the one who seemed to be saying what a wonderful confirmation it was.
“The problem with gay/lesbian marriage is that these arrangements treat mothers and fathers as optional accessories instead of necessities. Therein lies the hostility you deny” – you see anything different to your own unsubstantiated and opinionated beliefs as hostile? Wow!
“Get a new handle that is more apropos. I suggest FANTASY” – that was amusing the first three or four times it was applied by others here and I don’t object to it. Good old Gerard, always outdated by events and evidence.
“you can’t dictate a child’s personality and “neuter” him.” – and I agree.
“My point was not that his happiness proves men are obsolete.” – and they aren’t. As I’ve said, lesbians generally have a male interacting with the child in some manner. Friends, relatives, teachers.
“My parents wanted me to be one of those gentle little wallflower types, and I think you might guess that didn’t work out.” – good for you! So you would agree that children won’t turn out gay or lesbian just because their parents might be gay or lesbian.
You might be able to provide me with an ‘argument’ Bobby but it wouldn’t be proof, evidence or facts and certainly nothing scientific.
Mate:
[n] a chess move constituting an inescapable and indefensible attack on the opponent’s king
[n] an exact duplicate; “when a match is found an entry is made in the notebook”
[n] South American tea-like drink made from leaves of a South American holly called mate
[n] the officer below the master on a commercial ship
[n] informal term (Australian or British) for a friend of the same sex
[n] the partner of an animal (especially a sexual partner); “he loved the mare and all her mates”; “camels hate leaving their mates”
[n] a person’s partner in marriage
[n] a fellow member of a team; “it was his first start against his former teammates”
[n] South American holly; leaves used in making a drink like tea
[v] place an opponent’s king under an attack from which it cannot escape and thus ending the game; in a game of chess; “Kasparov checkmated his opponent after only a few moves”
[v] bring two objects, ideas, or people together; “This fact is coupled to the other one”; “Matchmaker, can you match my daughter with a nice young man?”; “The student was paired with a partner for collaboration on the project”
[v] make love; “Birds mate in the Spring”
[v] copulate, of animals
‘Mate’ does not necessarily mean ‘reproduce’. Do good, god-fearing heterosexual couples not ‘mate’ even if they are incapable of producing their own offspring, or are you relegating them?
Jennifer, Bobby, Ninek – love it!
Also – I believe that it’d be better to live like God exists, living an honest charitable life, and find out He does not (hypothetically) – than lived like God did not exist, and find out He does. Oops.
God is not a what – but a who – and those who have met Him and have an experience of Him know Him and want to be close and copy His example.
I’ve know quite a few people who swore up and down that God does not exist – and when they meet Him, they are changed – deeply, surprisingly and sometimes passionately. Even life-long atheists who were scientists have changed their view because of a personal encounter with Him.
I double dare those who do not believe to simply, honestly, deeply pray that God demonstrates Himself to you and that He gives you eyes to see, and ears to hear. See what happens. Double dog dare you!
Marvelous works, indeed! ;)
Praising God for all His glory!
Wake up Jennifer, words don’t all mean exactly and only what you wish they did.
You’re the one claiming that a non-evidential entity exists, you prove it. If I claimed there was a giant tea cup zooming around the sky you would quite rightly expect that I prove so to you, not that you prove it doesn’t. And what would I have to prove, that your god doesn’t exist? Then that someone else’s god doesn’t exist? And then another? And another? When you can prove that other peoples’ gods do not exist I’ll take another look at disproving yours for you.
My middle name isn’t photosynthesis. You do know how grass grows don’t you?
But I can make a baby, does that mean I’m god? According to your logic it does.
Maybe if you read some science texts as well as the bible you’d start to comprehend how evolution, biology, physics and astonomy have shown how things work.
That’s a nice little piece of prose about life, intelligence and DNA you’ve written – but where’s the evidence that it has anything to do with any god/s? There is none. Your words amount to ‘I don’t know how cars are manufactured so it must be god.’
Show me the evidence that people have met ‘god’ Joy. Do you have photos, tape recordings, anything other than peoples’ self-pronounced claims?
“I double dare those who do not believe to simply, honestly, deeply pray that God demonstrates Himself to you and that He gives you eyes to see, and ears to hear. See what happens. Double dog dare you!” – so if I chant myself into an incoherent and desensitized state for long enough I might start having fantasies, groovy.
No chanting required. Just try to honestly ask God to open your eyes to see Him. I know several people who grew up in atheist households, who were brought up to not believe in God, who had an experience of Him, and now are very devout believers. One explained to me that he was adamant about there not being a God and that he actively worked to stir people away from God – and yet he changed and I would have never expected that his background was that way.
Within the last couple of years a prominent scientist (I believe he was an astronomer or astrophysicist – at an advanced age, after being adamantly believing and writing against God – he had a conversion and now publicly acknowledges God.
So – all the martyrs of the Early Church and those martyred now, would not renounce Christianity, even if it meant sparing their lives or the lives of their family. Did they die for fantasies? Even when there was no immediate media, news or communication of calamity in the Roman empire and beyond?
Why would Saul – the enemy of the Church, not only stop persecuting the Church, but become one of the champions of the Church, also dying a martyrs’ death? Either they were all delusional at the same time, or believed in something (someone) so strongly that they would forgo this life for the next.
And no -these aren’t fantasies – no incoherent and desensitized state for the martyrs, and great thinkers of the Church. I’m sure St. Thomas More, et al would beg to differ.
So, no evidence then Joy. Didn’t think so.
How many humans have walked the earth over the past 500,000 years or so? And how many of those have believed in your particular version of ‘god’? And how many of those have displayed the behaviors you describe? Basically naff all.
history bears out that people died for their faith, and did charitable works- ones that were totally counter cultural, put their family at risk and they ended up historically verified. not naff at all. All you want to way is: I don’t see it, it does not exist. I hope you experience what you claim to be naff.
oh – I hope you are not saying that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, the Apostles and countless others never existed? who taught you history? oh – and for those who think Jesus never existed, he is mentioned in Roman historical documents. No naff there either.
See, now there’s your problem Joy, you make stuff up.
I never said that those people never existed or that they didn’t do or say some of the things that are claimed for them.
I said that in the context of the number of humans who have walked the earth, they are an infinitesimal number of oddities. So, basically naff all.
Joy, you’re thinking of Josephus Flavius. I’ve got his book right here. Not only is it still in print after 2000 years, but it’s been quoted by other authors ever since it was in print. And all those documents are all provable, physical, archeological evidence. Fantasy can’t prove God doesn’t exist either. In fact, there are several prominent neurologists who have proven that religious belief grows a part of the brain, makes it more active and larger. “Zen and the Brain” is one book I have on the subject. Whether or not God can be weighed on a triple beam scale doesn’t prove anything about his existence.
Joy you and I both know this: if God does exist, then we have chosen wisely to acknowledge him. If God did not exist, we have lost nothing by believing and have in fact improved our culture as a result. Tens of millions of people have been brutally murdered by atheists in about a century but only hundreds of thousands total have been killed by Christians over 2000 years. If we are right, it is statistically provable that we are less deadly. If atheists are wrong, not only is it provable they are more deadly and therefore a blight, they also endanger their immortal consciousness, which we name a soul. Dinesh De Souza’s books have a lot of great information, statistics, and detailed bibliographies. Fantasy will no doubt cough up some hairball of a response to this, but even Einstein would agree that energy cannot be destroyed. Therefore, we believers can enjoy the confidence of eternal life, while atheists, not having learned any mental discipline, are more likely to dissipate after physical death. Not unlike the proverbial chaff in the wind. :>) .
How disingenuous of you ninek! Countless numbers have been killed in the name of christianity, in the name of other faiths and in the name of other causes.
None have been killed in the name of atheism. Atheists are the least ‘deadly’ group.
Your attempt at statistical manipulation fails.
I didn’t realise you could type in your sleep :-)
She said they were killed by atheists. And their carnage in the last century does outdo that done “in the name of” religion. Not to mention that done “in the name of reproductive freedom”.
Just two cents from another sleeptyper. :)
Out of touch with Reality said: None have been killed in the name of atheism.
Dude – y0u’re going to have to clean that hairball up…
Let’s see here, Reality.
“You might be able to provide me with an ‘argument’ Bobby but it wouldn’t be proof, evidence or facts and certainly nothing scientific.”
It will definitely be evidence. Indeed it will not be scientific but again, why does it need to be? Can we only obtain knowledge through science?
I noticed you neither gave an argument against God’s existence nor took me up on my offer to show you one.
Also, in regards to your dictionary definition of mate: We were discussing teh use of the term mate as a verb:
“I say that loosely because men cannot have men for their mate and women cannot mate with women. Men and women can only mate with the opposite sex” – the evidence says otherwise.
No one actually thinks that men cannot be partners with men and women partners with women. Nice try at making it seem like it has way more meanings than our “narrow” view by including all meanings of its use as a noun as well. There is almost no way you thought we were trying to claim that men cannot mate with men in the sense of ” bring two objects, ideas, or people together.” That is asinine. Clearly we had the “copulate” definition in mind. Or wait, no… maybe we had the placing opponents king in a position in which he cannot escape definition in mind? Yeah, that makes sense. We we questioned whether or not men can mate with men, we really meant whether or not men can place another man in check in a game of chess.
Reality, I don’t like making judgments about people, but you seriously have a reading comprehension problem. Either that you don’t give a crap about anything we say and you answer things however you want to answer them. You completely dodge and avoid any kind of intellectual interaction every single time I have tried to discuss something with you, as this latest “it won’t be scientific, hlahlahlahla” garbage comment shows. I’ve never seen someone so intellectually dishonest. I am quite disappointed at how high the ratio of your arrogance to your intellect is. Probably one of the highest I’ve ever seen in my 5 years here at Jill’s. You aren’t impressing anyone with your posts, which I can’t even call arguments.
Seriously, I don’t know how to get you to interact like a human being. This is what I have to resort to now.
Fine, just so we can all watch reality not interact with an argument for God’s existence on any kind of intellectual level, I would like to give an argument for the existence of God in a syllogism. Note that this is only an argument about the existence of a supreme being and that this does not address any particular religion’s truth claims; specifically, it says nothing about the truth or falsity of Christianity and the claims of Jesus of Nazareth.
I will give the syllogism below and discuss the two premises briefly afterward.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
We define God as that cause. Observe that once we accept the two premises, the conclusion follows inescapably, so the soundness of the argument rests on the validity of the two premises. I will look at the second premise first because I will need to say less about it; for Reality knows and will not argue against science, and is probably familiar with big bang cosmology and the current big bang model. This asserts that the universe began as an initial singularity which began to expand at a very rapid rate. The universe, as well as all of space, time, and matter came into begin with the initial singularity. Without the initial singularity (notice, I can’t say “before” because there was no “before”) there was nothing; at least, nothing scientifically observable. Hence, whatever caused the big bang is outside of space, time, and matter. As scientists, we know that this is the generally accepted model of the origin of the cosmos.
Now onto the first premise. This is a first principle of metaphysics; that all effects have a cause. In fact, all of science is based on this principle. When we study a phenomenon, we ask “what caused this? how did this come to be?” So postulating that everything that begins to exists has a cause is completely consistent and indeed a cornerstone of all of science.
The alternative is that the universe popped into being, uncaused out of nothing. In other words, we have non-being causing being. But how can nothing cause something? For by definition, “nothing’ is that which has no properties- in particular, it lacks the property of causality. It also lacks potential. So it is a metaphysical absurdity to think that something can come from nothing. Let us take this further. I”m sitting here at my computer, alone in my room. But I have no fear that all of a sudden an elephant is going to pop into being in my room and eat my computer. And if something can come from nothing, I would be justified in being concerned that an elephant would pop into being in my room. Or a tiger, or a gun, or anything. But this is simply silly to worry about. We have no evidence of any such thing happening. Never in this world do we postulate that something came from nothing.
So when you consider the reasons for holding to these two premises, it seems we have in overwhelming amount of evidence to being that each premise is very plausible. Hence, it is very plausible that the cause of the universe, which we are calling God, exists.
That was pretty lame, Reality. I didn’t ask if you knew how grass grows, I asked you to create a blade of grass from nothing. Sure, cars can be manufactured, but who created the chemical compounds that compose steel? Can you make those?
You can make a baby?!? WOW! I’m a mother of three and even I can’t do that! I can’t create new life out of nothing. My created body has the capacity, when all the necessary elements come together, to nourish and enable the growth of a new life, but I can’t make a baby any more than you can. God creates new life, and He created my female body to have the ability to help in that process, which is an amazing gift.
The fact is, the evidence for God is everywhere, for those who are not too arrogant to see it. You are a blind and stubborn soul, Reality.
Gee, if atheists haven’t killed the religious, I don’t know how all those Tibetan monks ended up dead (just to use a tiny example). Maybe they are trampled by elephants. Zzz, huh, what? Lol!!
Bobby, Hans, Chris, Joy, and all the rest of you: You make me feel all warm and fuzzy! Thanks!
If any other atheists pop over here to read, here’s a nugget for you:
I agree that the universe began with “the big bang.” Except, since it took time for animals with ears to come about, we can safely assume that even if there were sound WAVES, no one was around yet to hear them. So, imagine the big bang, but turn down the volume. Now, you have “the big flash.” Got it, so far? Ok, now go get any bible at all, the Jewish Bible, any Christian bible, any translation you care to open. Turn to page one. Read the first few lines.
See? I do agree with you.
Ok Reality – i hope you can read better when it comes to your job, contracts, legalities etc!
I said ‘I hope that you are not saying that…’ Basically I see that you are dismissing things just because not a sufficient number qualify for your assessment.
Good golly. As my mother fondly said: “If you had 100 people jumping off a bridge, would you do that also?” so – as we can see – morality & goodness has nothing to do with numbers – only actions. Was the young man in Tienanmen Square wrong, just because he was out-manned and out-gunned? How about Mother Theresa? Just because there were so many poor to treat, does that make her effort less desirable, less good?
Believers believe for many reasons – and that does not negate the worth of believing or the actuality of God at all. And if there was just one believer – that does not negate the existence of God.
The real question is not if you should or should not believe as a rational analytical exercise – but if a supreme being exists, what does that do for your world view? If man is the highest object in the universe, then why should he behave? And behave for the good? If one chooses to only satisfy himself and not do good for the other, what other authority would he place himself under? Why bother doing good at all?
But if mankind had a purpose – a direction in life that is to be the highest version of himself, to choose the good – not only for himself but for others, would you say that elevates himself and mankind? Would that change the family, neighborhoods, work places, nations and the world.
Having a God-centered life helps one do that. Why? because mankind is not the end-all of all things. We are part of a bigger, purposeful picture where each of us plays a part. And when we choose the good – not for ourselves, but for the other, then we can truly live humanity at its best.
No need for bean-counting here. No checks and balances to decide moral behavior based on sheer numbers or magnitude of agreement or committee. We can not make ourselves. We can not make another without others. We are made for community, and made for service.
Does God exist? yes. Do you know him yet? Not that you know of? If we can not create ourselves, and we can not create humans solo, then asking the age-old question – where do humans come from? is a good start. Where does everything come from? is a good second start? and what is my purpose here, in this time, in this place is another good question.
We wish you good fortune in finding the answers.
Bobby, just to play devil’s advocate….
If everything has a cause, and God is the cause for the universe…. what is the cause for God? Is He the one exception to the rule??
Hi Jodes.
Thanks for the question, and it’s a good one. However, note that I never claimed that “everything has a cause.” The first premise is worded very carefully. The first premise says that “everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.” So God is not an exception to the rule because he never began to exist and hence, God has no cause. He is the uncaused cause. In fact, there must be something that has the property that its existence is identical with its nature. What I mean by that is this- you and I exist contingently; that is, we came into being, there was a time when we didn’t exist, and it isn’t part of who we are to exist. We share in existence, but presumably, the world could function fine (and the world will continue to function fine) when you and I cease to exist. Thus our essence or nature is other than existence. However, there must be some being (we call it God) in whom existence is the same as essence. This is because if there was no such thing that had this property, then there would be nothing now. For out of nothing, nothing comes. If at some point there ever was nothing (not just scientific nothing, but NOTHING nothing), then nothing could be now because, as we just said, nothing cannot produce something. So there must have always been something, and if that something has always been, it is existence. This we call God.
Notice that while I did not argue for the truth of Christianity, this is very consistent with the Christian understanding of God. For in Exodus 3:14, God reveals his name to Moses as “I am who am.” This has been understood thorought Christian history as meaning that God was claiming to reveal to Moses that he is the same thing as existence, that he always has been.
So in sum, it isn’t the claim (or at least, it should not be the claim) of a defender of theism that everything that exists has a cause. That is false. Rather, everything that begins to exist has a cause and the Christian understanding of God is that he never began to exist, but must exist eternally. Atheists can no longer say that the universe itself has this property. For as the great physicist Alexander Vilenkin (who proved the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem which says that under reasonable conditions, ANY universe must have a beginning) says:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Hope that helps.
The universe, as well as all of space, time, and matter came into begin with the initial singularity. Without the initial singularity (notice, I can’t say “before” because there was no “before”) there was nothing; at least, nothing scientifically observable. Hence, whatever caused the big bang is outside of space, time, and matter. As scientists, we know that this is the generally accepted model of the origin of the cosmos.
Bobby, this is more in doubt, generally, now, than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Our observable universe may not be the whole deal. May be multiverses or “multi-universes” that create “baby universes” of which what we can detect at this time would be one. General relativity does predict a singularity, but things are not working out as they should, per that model – there’s not nearly enough mass, for one thing, and we’ve come up with the ideas of “dark matter” and “dark energy” to get around that.
Recently, as we study the background radiation of the “Big Bang” we’re finding other problems with the model. A really big one is that we’re seeing much lower entropy in the universe than should be the case, that “early” on. For the Big Bang model to work, things should be more ordered then, giving enough “room” to move from more ordered to less ordered, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc. If our universe was a quantum effect of another universe, or of a “multiverse,” then there may not have been the commonly-conceived singularity. The other universe would have its own entropy and ours could have come into being at the lower entropy state we now see was there.
If there was a “before” relative to our universe, and something else “out there” beyond our universe, it may have left its own effects, and what we see is a lopsidedness in the microwave background of our univese, roughly 10% stronger to one side of the sky than on the other. This really does not fit with the notion of the Big Bang and everything expanding from there.
Hi Doug.
“May be multiverses or “multi-universes” that create “baby universes” of which what we can detect at this time would be one.”
If the multiverse is true, this simply pushes the question one step back. For the question would then be to explain the cause of the multiverse. Furthermore, teh problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not observable nor does it make predictions. IN short, it is very difficult to put any sort of confidence in a theory which hardly constitutes science. There are many physicists who are critical of M-theory and the multiverse theory, such as Lee Smolin and Columbia University mathematician/physicist Peter Woit who writes a blog called “Not Even Wrong” and wrote a book by the same title critiquing the multiverse theory and M-theory on the grounds that it does not constitute science for the reasons I mentioned above. So the multiverse is far more speculative than popular media lets on, and I certainly would not hold out in hopes that there will be much progress soon. It can’t be tested or observed, and it is more of a hypothesis to force quantum and general relativity to work.
Unfortunately, I can’t go much further into the science than this, but it is my understanding that this has stood and continues to stand the test of time, and that it is accepted by most physicists today. There simply is no way to test the multiverse theory nor to use it to make predictions (yet), something that general relativity and the standard model have been able to do. Thus it seems highly dubious to hold to any sort of multiverse theory.
If you want to go by logic alone, than nothing should exist. There should be nothing but black, empty space. Thankfully, that does not appear to be the case.
I know that many times times you look around and say: “Where is God?” But then you look around and say: “Is it really scientific to believe that something can come from nothing?”
The only thing that would be more incredible than the existence of God would be that He didn’t exist.
The multi-verse theory appeals to some humans on an emotional level because then they can believe that every mistake they make is not made by their alternate self. Thus, no guilt and no regret. It’s a very new agey fun thing for the moment.
Some believe that guilt and regret are just human notions thought up by a bunch of mean old guys. If so, it doesn’t explain guilt in other cultures. However, we can observe guilt in the animal kingdom among species that work together. Why? There must be something useful about such an emotion. And that is this: guilt, in order to be productive and not a pathology, must have a payoff. The payoff is learned behavior that improves as the creature matures If the creature, be it lion, wolf, or human, can learn to avoid guilt in the future by doing the better action, then the group, be it pride, pack, or village, can aquire more food to live longer and breed more and thus pass on it’s DNA to future generations.
Fairness. Fairness might seem to be a human emotion and again, many atheists think you can disregard fairness. Where in the animal kingdom can we see fairness in action? In a study, monkeys had to press a lever to get a treat. Two monkeys could see each other and each other’s treats. One monkey would get a slice of cucumber. The other would get a grape. What happened? Eventually cucumber monkey got angry and stopped moving the lever. Why? Monkeys like grapes more than cucumbers. Cuke monkey couldn’t see the point of doing the same work for less pay.
So, despite the fact that many atheists think that sin is the construct of a bunch of mean old men, for example, disliking sin makes sense. A wolf who eats ALL the meat is going to face the anger of the other wolves, who are hungry. A wolf who eats more meat but still leaves enough for his companions will not have to face the same consequences.
Abortion fans are often atheists or sometimes “Christians” who erroneously believe in relativism. They can’t understand why they MUST use lies and coercion and murder to get their way but they blindly fight for it. They can’t understand why the rest of us fight them and won’t give up. It is not because we are Christian, although orthodox Judeo-Christian law dovetails nicely with natural law. Abortion will NEVER be acceptable. They will have to keep up the lies and coercion. The moment they slack off, we will again gain the upper hand. The same is true of trying to force procreation to be cut off from natural human interaction, that is they may try to force us all to accept their false way of creating families by sperm donors and IVF, but ultimately it is a failure. Left to our own devices, without lies and coercion (the lie being: ‘You don’t need a mate, you can procreate through science and you can have all the sex you want without making babies!’ and the coercion being ‘you are bad and will be shunned if you don’t agree’), we will revert back to natural law (sex makes babies, love inspires us to nurture each other). Back to your regular programming.
Doug,
Another thing that I didn’t think to mention but should have: while it seems to me that there is almost no debate anymore over teh acceptance of teh big bang model for teh origin of the universe, the big bang model itself isn’t really necessary for the argument to hold. What is needed is the universe to have had a beginning. Even if the items you bring up were to pose a problem to the big bang model, I don’t know of anything (other than multiverse “theory”) which proposes to undermine the fact that universe had a beginning. In that sense, I don’t there is any other kinds of evidence to suggest that the universe did not have a beginning, without which, space time and matter did not exist. There certainly isn’t any other credible model of teh origins of the universe which postulate that the universe is eternal. As teh Vilenkin quote suggests, there really is no way to avoid the beginning of the universe without jumping into the non-scientific theories of M-theory.
Hans and Chris – show me where anyone has perpetrated war or genocide in the name of atheism. If atheists have perpetrated such acts they have done it in the name of communism or something else, not in the name of atheism. As for faiths of various hues…..
“It will definitely be evidence. Indeed it will not be scientific” – indeed it won’t Bobby. My argument against ‘gods’ existence is that there is no evidence for it. If I claimed the flying spaghetti monster was behind everything you would expect to see some evidence, not just my claim that such a thing is real because I believe it to be so. Look, here is a photo of non-god – ( ) – and here is a tract of some of that non-gods words – ( ). See if you can show me some evidence for your god. And not some self-supporting circular ramble.
“Nice try at making it seem like it has way more meanings than our “narrow” view” – is that statement born of arrogance or ignorance?
Verbs:
[v] make love; “Birds mate in the Spring”
[v] copulate, of animals
men can mate with men and women can mate with women. Just to reiterate, the production of progeny is not a prerequisite of ‘mating’. Do I need to explain how gays and lesbians mate? Again, do infertile heterosexual couples not mate or is that just you deciding they are ‘lesser’?
“bring two objects, ideas, or people together” – which is exactly what they do.
‘Copulate’ doesn’t just mean to produce progeny either. You wanna try finding information beyond that which resides in your mind?
“but you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.” – oh I think you clearly demonstrate that it is you who lacks either ability or honesty in that regard.
“you answer things however you want to answer them” – I answer them with verifiable facts such as cited dictionary definitions whilst you only apply your biased interpretations.
“I don’t know how to get you to interact like a human being” – try applying some truth to what you say.
“an argument for God’s existence on any kind of intellectual level” – I think you mean ’emotional level’, intellectual application is what demonstrates the non-existence of any god/s.
“So when you consider the reasons for holding to these two premises, it seems we have in overwhelming amount of evidence to being that each premise is very plausible. Hence, it is very plausible that the cause of the universe, which we are calling God, exists” – ah, the ‘god of the gaps’ theory, how trite. Pity the gap is so consistently narrowing that this theory is being extinguished.
“The fact is, the evidence for God is everywhere” – go on then, show me.
“Gee, if atheists haven’t killed the religious, I don’t know how all those Tibetan monks ended up dead (just to use a tiny example)” – what a totally spurious and twisted application of logic. They were killed in the name of ‘politics’ or ‘resource grabbing’ and not all of the perpetrators are atheists because it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
Actually, sound waves can be ‘heard’ without what are classified as ‘ears’. Leap of faith fail.
If you want to go by logic alone, than nothing should exist.
Hans, to me, anyway, that does not make sense, because logic implies there is some “mind” at work, in the first place, and the one thing a consciousness can really be sure of is its own existence. Everything beyond that could be akin to a “dream” from which it could later wake up, but the old “I think, therefore I am” deal can’t really be argued.
“My argument against ‘gods’ existence is that there is no evidence for it. ”
As long as you realize that that isn’t an argument, fine. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
“ah, the ‘god of the gaps’ theory, how trite. Pity the gap is so consistently narrowing that this theory is being extinguished.”
That’s you rebuttal? Reality, did you what Doug did above? He interacted with my argument. Doug is an intelligent, rational, thinking atheist. Your “counter” to my argument is a joke. You didn’t even address it. Which premise do you deny? Doug made it clear that he rejects premise 2. Did you not read what I wrote above? I said that there is good reason to believe that there is something outside of space, time, and matter that created the universe. I DEFINE that cause to be a thing I call “God.” A God of the gaps argument appeals to God to explain something that we don’t know how it works. That is not the case here. We have deduced through the two premises that there is a cause of the universe which is outside of space time and matter. What is that cause? I use the term “God” to describe that cause. Again, notice I said nothing about God being all good, or teh Christian God or what have you.
I am not saying the following for your sake, Reality, but for those who may be following this thread and be interested in teh discussion. I am done responding to anything reality says that is a blow off, smart alec, no thought, rude, 0 effort, not addressing anything I say, gotcha, take that, in your face, no you’re the dumb one!, hlahlahla, etc etc comment which has been 100% of her comments so far. Done.
“there is good reason to believe that there is something outside of space, time, and matter that created the universe. I DEFINE that cause to be a thing I call “God.” – well bully for you! There may be ‘good reason’ to you but not to science. You SUMMISE that thing to be ‘god’, it’s still totally non-evidential.
“We have deduced through the two premises that there is a cause of the universe which is outside of space time and matter” – no, YOU have deduced. Your syllogism is not a paradigm.
“What is that cause? I use the term “God” to describe that cause” - that’s a belief, not a fact.
When are you going to show something that amounts to evidence? So far all you’ve done is create your own postulations and plugged ‘god’ into the blank bits.
Bobby, indeed – the multiverse theory is just speculation, and I didn’t mean to assert its necessary validity. If nothing else, it can’t be disproven, the same as for the existence of a God or gods, etc. It may well be that the Big Bang is still “the” accepted model among physicists, but things really have changed in the last decade, i.e. it’s only been ten years since the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was even launched, that which later confirmed some things about our universe even as it raised more questions.
If we do go with the Big Bang/Singularity, then I applaud you for saying that we can’t really talk about “before” since there is no such thing, i.e. spacetime itself would be collapsed into the singularity. There would have been no time when the universe did not exist, and I don’t think that is in line with how most people view it, as if our commonly-perceived earthly one-dimensional notion of time applies.
The Big Bang theory doesn’t have the universe expanding through space, but rather that new space is being added in-between the matter/objects. Here too, I think this at odds with how most of us “Newtonian-thinking” people picture things. And thinking of the Big Bang as if it would be the “beginning” of the universe is really nothing more than a theory.
With the Big Bang, we can “run the clock backwards” with general relativity in mind, but when we get close enough to what would be the Singularity, general relativity no longer works, and things are all quantum effects. Then, it could still be that there was the “beginning,” but it’s also possible that infinite density isn’t reached, and there would be a high-density quantum state with time continuing back indefinitely, or some quantum effect on time itself might render the concept of “beginning” as moot.
The Big Bang is a prevalent theory, but the fact remains that we’re guessing about what happened/would happen.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause. We define God as that cause.
Bobby, aside from thinking relativistically or wondering what happens when quantum effects take over, (which frankly makes my head hurt), I do have some more “common sense” objections to the first cause argument.
In our reckoning of time, looking back to what we postulate as the Big Bang, if there was a first cause 13.7 billion years ago, why would that cause still necessarily be in existence?
____
an intelligent, rational, thinking atheist. Thanks for that description, my friend, but I have to say – I’m agnostic. I have never seen the sense in stating “There is no God,” because what proof of this could there ever be?
Wow, I’m glad I took a break from this site for the last couple of days…
I think ending a human life is wrong no matter who does it. I don’t like the way that every post involving GLBT people leads to these massive comments on why being GLBT is wrong, as though destroying human life is somehow connected to being GLBT. These comments are particularly frustrating to me because one, I’m bisexual, and two, this seems to be the only non-abortion-related group that merits this level of condemnation on this site. If this was a clinic opened by, say, Hindus, we wouldn’t see people here saying, “Well, this is what happens if you reject Christ as your Savior.” Why is it that the anti-GLBT people on this site can deal politely with people who are “not living the will of God” in the religious sense, but if someone’s attracted to the same sex everyone seems to lose all sense of proportion?
If there are countless studies showing that kids are better off with a mother and a father – as opposed to two parents of the same sex, not as opposed to one parent – I’d like to see them. I’m tired of everyone claiming “research has shown” and not bothering to cough up the research.
When I was conceived, my parents, who are married and Catholic, had been trying to conceive for about ten years. They had me through artificial insemination with their own egg and sperm. No zygotes, embryos, or fetuses died in the process. It’s personally offensive to me to hear people say that people who can’t get pregnant through having sex “just aren’t meant to have children.” When I was a little kid I’d hear things like that and cry because I thought it meant Jesus didn’t want me to be born. My parents didn’t make a big point of telling me how I was conceived, by the way. I asked questions and they don’t believe in lying to your kids.
Why is it that the anti-GLBT people on this site can deal politely with people who are “not living the will of God” in the religious sense, but if someone’s attracted to the same sex everyone seems to lose all sense of proportion?
First of all, I don’t know that people are necessarily “anti-GLBT people” but rather against their actions and against the broader political agenda that seems to come with it.
Secondly, I think some people might see the GLBT issue as transcending religion, since biologically, being GLBT does not benefit the continuation of humanity (doesn’t even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint) except through artificial means, which is what the quote was originally about. I think it’s less about “rejecting Christ as your Savior” and more about “rejecting biology and societal norms.”
You asked, so there’s my theory. :D
Being celibate doesn’t benefit the continuation of humanity either. I think the objections are much more religious than they are related to any concern about the continuation of humanity. We have people on this site who use birth control, which could also be seen as “rejecting biology” and would have been seen as “rejecting societal norms” not terribly long ago. When it comes to the continuation of humanity, how is a man who gets a vasectomy any less of a “problem” than a man who has sex with another man? Neither of them are making any kids when they have sex. The mention of a man having a vasectomy doesn’t bring about any Biblical quotes about being fruitful and multiplying or Onan spilling his seed on the ground. The message seems to be that while it’s okay for straight people to have sex and not make babies through it – whether it’s because of surgical sterilization, birth control, or NFP – gay and bisexual people having same-sex relationships and not reproducing through them is wrong because they’re enjoying sexual relations that won’t create any children. From a continuation-of-humanity standpoint, there’s no difference between “Beth,” who had a hysterectomy, having sex with “Bob”, and “Bill” having sex with Bob. There’s only a religious difference.
Maurader,
It is rather ridiculous to compare celibacy with homosexuality. Celibacy is the conscious choice to refrain from sexual activity, likely because of sacred vows to God. Homosexuality is a distortion and misuse of the gift of human sexuality that God has declared sinful.
A heterosexual married couple who cannot have children as a result of necessary medical surgery, (not an optional vasectomy or tubal ligation, which is also a sin) is not in any way, shape or form the same thing as two men engaging in sex with each other. Of course unnatural relations cannot produce children. That’s why it’s unnatural.
There’s a very big and obvious moral difference.
Marauder: We have people on this site who use birth control, which could also be seen as “rejecting biology” and would have been seen as “rejecting societal norms” not terribly long ago. When it comes to the continuation of humanity, how is a man who gets a vasectomy any less of a “problem” than a man who has sex with another man? Neither of them are making any kids when they have sex.
Yeah – take out the unprovable assumptions based on faith, and the bottom line still remains – we make choices that can be seen as “against nature” all the time. We alter our environment, our bodies (take drugs, have surgery, etc.) in an effort to have something other that what would be the case was nature simply allowed to “take its course.”
And, how did “the continuation of humanity” get to be a problem, in the first place, based on people choosing whether to have kids or not? The world has over 6 billion people, and the US Census Bureau says 9 billion by the year 2040 or 2030 – I forget, but it’s somewhere in there, not all that far into the future. It’s not like we are “dying out;” quite the contrary in fact.
If anything, I’d say it is our sheer numbers and effect on the environment that is the greatest threat to our survival as a species. What realistic scenario is there that all of a sudden we’ll be saying, “Dagnabbit – we should have had more kids”? Meanwhile, our effect on the planet, due in large part to our sheer numbers, mounts, and while water supply, food supply, energy costs, pollution are already big problems, I submit that you ain’t seen nothin’ yet….
No one has addressed my point even though abortion is the main issue of this website. It seems to me that pregnancies conceived at fertility clinics are unlikely to be aborted. Do others agree that these pregnancies are less apt to be aborted than those conceived the old-fashioned way?
Not if they’re the “extras” conceived in IVF. They’re often “weeded out”.
Marauder, if you want to argue, I’m not goin’ there with you. I thought you actually wanted an answer to why people respond the way they do. I guess you just wanted to argue about religion or perhaps you didn’t really want an answer anyway.
When it comes to the continuation of humanity, how is a man who gets a vasectomy any less of a “problem” than a man who has sex with another man?
I personally am not in favor of vasectomies.
The message seems to be that while it’s okay for straight people to have sex and not make babies through it – whether it’s because of surgical sterilization, birth control, or NFP – gay and bisexual people having same-sex relationships and not reproducing through them is wrong because they’re enjoying sexual relations that won’t create any children. From a continuation-of-humanity standpoint, there’s no difference between “Beth,” who had a hysterectomy, having sex with “Bob”, and “Bill” having sex with Bob. There’s only a religious difference.
Men and women are biologically designed to have sex with one another. A penis fits into a vagina. People here have been over this with you many times. If you want to make this all about religion, that’s your problem, not ours. If you cannot see the design of basic human reproduction and know that sperm and egg unite to form human beings and that sperm comes from a penis and enters through the cervix of a woman, I don’t really know what to tell you.
Are you personally against people having sex with animals, or does that cross a line for you?
Yeah – take out the unprovable assumptions based on faith, and the bottom line still remains – we make choices that can be seen as “against nature” all the time. We alter our environment, our bodies (take drugs, have surgery, etc.) in an effort to have something other that what would be the case was nature simply allowed to “take its course.”
Obviously, Doug, those choices against nature would be life-creating or life-preserving choices, except in the case of birth control.
BTW, I’m so sick of the birth control commercials that treat women’s bodies as if they’re defective. “Only FOUR periods a year! FREEDOM!” Yeah, whatever. Pop a pill so you can’t reproduce. Whatever. If you think like that, the world’s probably better off without your progeny anyway.
And yes, I am having one of those “I’m fed up” days. :D
Denise, I guess that would depend on the mentality of those involved. If they have a belief that they have the right to have a perfect child at any cost, then I’m guessing the discovery of a birth defect could be viewed as a perfectly valid reason to abort.
And i also think that anyone who becomes pregnant while seeking to have a child is less likely to abort their child on average than a person seeking to avoid pregnancy. I don’t know if the whole fertility clinic issue would make a difference in that respect.
A heterosexual married couple who cannot have children as a result of necessary medical surgery, (not an optional vasectomy or tubal ligation, which is also a sin) is not in any way, shape or form the same thing as two men engaging in sex with each other. Of course unnatural relations cannot produce children. That’s why it’s unnatural.
There’s a very big and obvious moral difference.
And this is why I asked the bestiality question, as well. If that type of sexual contact can be deemed as “consensual” and it’s gone on in societies around the world in the past, does that make it morally ok? If not, why not? Where is the line for you, personally?
And Jennifer, I think too many people around here think all semblance of “morality” must come from someone’s “religious” hangups. Personally my issues with homosexuality go well beyond my religion. But see, if you’re religious, and you have statistics from any religious source that show risks in the homosexual lifestyle, then you are labeled a religious bigot. CC discredits all ‘religious’ pro-life research and others choose to discredit all ‘religious’ research that comes down against homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle.
And P.S. – yes, I know homosexuals, and yes, I have loved, cried and prayed with them. Please do not assume that those of us who are “religious” have it out for gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Um, Kel, are you asking me where the line is for me personally? I couldn’t tell whether you were directing your comment to me, or simply expounding on the point I made.
The line for me personally is simple: Sex is only for marriage, and marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Sex is both unitive and procreative, and purposely trying to prevent the procreation while enjoying the unitive is wrong.
(That would be a clear and hearty NO to bestiality.)
Yup Kel, that’s the same thing as making some dumb racist comment and then saying, “Oh but it’s okay, I’ve got black friends.” Face it, you’re guilty of bigoted thinking and speech. Join the club. Own it.
It seems to me that pregnancies conceived at fertility clinics are unlikely to be aborted. Do others agree that these pregnancies are less apt to be aborted than those conceived the old-fashioned way?
Denise, no doubt – these are motivated would-be-parents, for sure. I also think Hans has a good point – that not all the conceptions/zygotes/embryos will necessarily be kept alive.
I have a first cousin, who, with his wife, wanted to have more kids. I’m not sure if IVF was the only possible way at that point – they already had a girl and a boy – but with IVF, 7 embryos were conceived. No way there were going to be any abortions, not had there been 12. They were going to go from 2 kids to 9, wham bam thank you ma’am.
Not too far into the pregnancy, there were problems, and two fetuses died. Not certain how the sequence went after that, but it was something like one more died in a couple more weeks, then two more, leaving two alive. It was getting late enough in gestation that the doctors were counting down the time to when they could be expected to survive out of the womb. They were smaller than normal for the time of gestation, and…. then something else happened and the last two died. My cousin and his wife were devastated – they certainly had been motivated to the max.
Obviously, Doug, those choices against nature would be life-creating or life-preserving choices, except in the case of birth control.
BTW, I’m so sick of the birth control commercials that treat women’s bodies as if they’re defective. “Only FOUR periods a year! FREEDOM!” Yeah, whatever. Pop a pill so you can’t reproduce. Whatever. If you think like that, the world’s probably better off without your progeny anyway.
Kel, no problem in being fed up with some things. I’ve just recently seen a couple college basketball teams find a way to lose, much to the detriment of the household happiness here.
I don’t blame some women for wanting less severe or fewer periods per year, though I do wonder what side effects may come with it.
With IVF, I see it as both potentially life-creating and life-destroying. If the parents don’t want to adopt, etc., then IVF may be the only way they’re going to have a kid or kids, i.e. without that, at least one life won’t be. And “extras” might not be kept alive, so overall it could result in more lives and more deaths.
I don’t blame people for wanting to have “their” kids, but do see risks in the pursuit of the “perfect” baby, or “designer-babies” picked for what are presumed to be superior mental or physical attributes, etc. The greater the expectation, the greater the chance for failure, i.e. if the kid ends up not being the #1 ranked tennis player in the world or doesn’t have a 44 inch vertical jump (or if the kid just plain doesn’t want to pursue athletics, in this case), what do the parents do then?
Sure Megan.
I believe people are equal, without question of race, creed, religion, etc. I am also not against gay adoption.
Let me know when you decide to treat actual human beings in utero as the humans that they are. Mmkay?
No, Jennifer, sorry – I got into my “fed up” mode and forgot to specify I was talking to Marauder. :D
I agree with you. I quoted your statement on morality to help clarify my question about bestiality. Sorry for the confusion.
P.S. Megan, you proved my point: But see, if you’re religious, and you have statistics from any religious source that show risks in the homosexual lifestyle, then you are labeled a religious bigot.
So predictable, you are. :)
You and CC feign outrage at perceived instances of bigotry against homosexuals and Jews. But you are blind to the fact that you deny humanity to humans.
BTW, I could post links to back up the health risks of practicing gay sex, but that’s been done here before by others (I know because that’s where I got the links from!), and they were ignored and labeled as “religious bigotry.”
There really is no seeing eye to eye on this issue, I’m afraid. And anyone who dares to question homosexuality is, as Megan has proved, labeled a bigot.
Think what you want, Megs. The people who know me – my friends – the ones whom I have defended from actual bigotry strictly because they are homosexual – they know better.
Have a nice evening.
I don’t blame some women for wanting less severe or fewer periods per year, though I do wonder what side effects may come with it.
I don’t either, Doug. I’m not one of those lucky women who has “less severe” periods. But I can truly say mine prepared me for labor. Yep. They’re that much fun.
With IVF, I see it as both potentially life-creating and life-destroying. If the parents don’t want to adopt, etc., then IVF may be the only way they’re going to have a kid or kids, i.e. without that, at least one life won’t be. And “extras” might not be kept alive, so overall it could result in more lives and more deaths.
True. But, as pro-choicers are so fond of pointing out, there are many children waiting to be adopted. Why not adopt? Expense can’t truly be the issue if a couple is pursuing IVF, right?
I don’t blame people for wanting to have “their” kids, but do see risks in the pursuit of the “perfect” baby, or “designer-babies” picked for what are presumed to be superior mental or physical attributes, etc. The greater the expectation, the greater the chance for failure, i.e. if the kid ends up not being the #1 ranked tennis player in the world or doesn’t have a 44 inch vertical jump (or if the kid just plain doesn’t want to pursue athletics, in this case), what do the parents do then?
In all fairness, it’s not just people who have fertility treatments who desire the “perfect” child. Plenty of parents heap their disappointments on their children. It’s a sad thing to see.
Kel, I was just pointing out that while one kind of sex that can’t produce children leads to some very vocal opposition on this site, other kinds of sex that can’t produce children tend to pass without comment. If there’s a non-religious reason why this happens, I have no idea what it is.
Why not adopt? Expense can’t truly be the issue if a couple is pursuing IVF, right?
Kel, I imagine that’s true, but there’s still a lot of people who want their own kid, genetically speaking.
Doug, I said that because typically, many of the same people who rail against pro-lifers and claim we don’t adopt enough children are the same ones who push for IVF. I guess adopting is solely the job of those who’d prefer the children not be killed prior to birth.
The same pro-“choicers” here who have told pro-lifers to mind their own business and just adopt all the unwanted kids are people who haven’t adopted a child and never will.
If you’re a gay couple and you want your own children, genetically, how’s that going to happen? I think i read something the other day about researchers trying to get two men to genetically have their own child, etc. Why are we pulling crazy genetic stunts without regard to their possible impact when there are kids just waiting to be adopted?
I don’t get it, I guess.