Medical Adultery ?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Who are adulterers?

None
9
100%
Alice
0
No votes
Brad
0
No votes
Caroline
0
No votes
Dianne
0
No votes
Alice and Brad
0
No votes
Alice and Caroline
0
No votes
Alice and Dianne
0
No votes
Brad and Caroline
0
No votes
Brad and Dianne
0
No votes
Caroline and Dianne
0
No votes
Some combination of three of them.
0
No votes
Alice, Brad, Caroline and Dianne
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 9

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Medical Adultery ?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

99percentatheism wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
99percentatheism wrote:my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.
Really?

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

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

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

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.
How is the term adultery defined? OK, you might think that I am daft. "Don't you know what adultery means?" Is adultery about only sex, procreation or both? If a married person has a sexual relationship with someone who is not his or her spouse, that is called adultery. But what about ways of getting pregnant that do not involve sex? Is it adultery for a physician to perform in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation? Are surrogate mothers committing adultery? Are sperm donors necessarily adulterers? What if it is their wives who collect the samples?
  1. Alice's sister cannot keep a pregnancy to term. She offers to carry the embryo created from her sister's egg and her sister's husband, Brad's sperm in her womb for them.
  2. Caroline's husband is impotent, but they want to have a baby. She has one of her eggs fertilized by an anonymous donor.
  3. In each of the previous cases, the physician doing the procedures is named Dianne.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Re: Medical Adultery ?

Post #2

Post by 99percentatheism »

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

I must say my ego gets a boost whenever I see a person of your caliber trying to fence me in.

But the question of in vitro fertilization being defined as adultery is certainly nothing I conjured up:
In an address to Catholic doctors, Pope Pius XII condemned AID because a third person becoming involved in a marriage is like "mechanical adultery": the donor fathers a child (with his sperm) yet he has no responsibility to the child; and a process that isolates the sacred act of creating life from the marriage union is a violation of the marriage union (which alone is the way to create life). However, if the marriage act is preserved, then various clinical techniques designed to help create new life are not to be condemned."

- http://www.rsrevision.com/GCSE/shortcou ... atment.htm
Now in this same referenced url we see the Methodists and the "Church of England" differing in their view, but the fidelity (or lack thereof) to Biblical/scriptural sexuality of those organizations shouldn't be surprising to anyone that has followed history.

Here's another source from a catholic voice that seems to support my opinion and usage of the term scientific adultery. I guess I could have used the term "technical adultery" too:
In-Vitro-Fertilization results in human lives that are manufactured by scientists and technicians, rather than through human sexual intercourse. This will eventually result in our viewing human beings as products we can control and destroy as we see fit.

- http://www.rsrevision.com/GCSE/shortcou ... atment.htm
In the section "Bioethics" (scroll down the page) my dear brothers in the Orthodox Church state:
Artificial insemination by a husband (AIH) is not rejected, but artificial insemination by donor (AID) is considered an improper intrusion of a third party in the sanctity of the marital relation.

- http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues
And of course one cannot avoid the tree (Israel) in which we (Christians) are grafted onto and must at least entertain their opinions. And with halacha (dealing with mamzer as well), those opinions can become numerous indeed:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... sm/IVF.pdf

Suffice it to say, I should have expended my choice neologism in other medical and technical directions.

But it's usually excitingly sporty to deal with your OP's inspired by one of my postings McCulloch. This ones no exception. We'll see how it develops.

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #3

Post by Haven »

This entire issue demonstrates the absurdity of religion-based morality. Blind adherence to a collection of superstitious ancient documents and mindless traditions, with no reason or compassion to be found.

To answer the OP, none of these people are adulterers. Adultery is when someone in an exclusive relationship has sexual contact with someone outside the relationship without their partner's consent.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #4

Post by 99percentatheism »

Haven
This entire issue demonstrates the absurdity of religion-based morality.
As compared to what? Intense selfishness in a godless perspective? The links that I presented show exactly the opposite to your characterization of "religion-based morality." What is your comparison? Anything goes? We have seen how pitiless and dangerous this kind of morality is to children from conception to death later on in the womb or city streets haven't we? Finally?

Aren't you adding "Mutually Acceptable Adultery" to the list? Medical, Technical, Acceptable . . .? And then ONLY if the couple IS married and of course ARE opposite genders. If you want to compare "religion-based" to purely and perfectly secular.
Researchers have found that for children, the results are nothing short of disastrous, along a number of dimensions:

-children’s diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security (children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and episodic bouts of self-loathing)

-behavioral problems (fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships, and manifest behavior problems; many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness)

-truancy and poor academic performance (71 per cent of high school dropouts are fatherless; fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills; children from father absent homes are more likely to play truant from school, more likely to be excluded from school, more likely to leave school at age 16, and less likely to attain academic and professional qualifications in adulthood)

-delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime (85 per cent of youth in prison have an absent father; fatherless children are more likely to offend and go to jail as adults)

-promiscuity and teen pregnancy (fatherless children are more likely to experience problems with sexual health, including a greater likelihood of having intercourse before the age of 16, foregoing contraception during first intercourse, becoming teenage parents, and contracting sexually transmitted infection; girls manifest an object hunger for males, and in experiencing the emotional loss of their fathers egocentrically as a rejection of them, become susceptible to exploitation by adult men)

-drug and alcohol abuse (fatherless children are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, and abuse drugs in childhood and adulthood)

-homelessness (90 per cent of runaway children have an absent father)

-exploitation and abuse (fatherless children are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, being five times more likely to have experienced physical abuse and emotional maltreatment, with a one hundred times higher risk of fatal abuse; a recent study reported that preschoolers not living with both of their biological parents are 40 times more likely to be sexually abused)

-physical health problems (fatherless children report significantly more psychosomatic health symptoms and illness such as acute and chronic pain, asthma, headaches, and stomach aches)

-mental health disorders (father absent children are consistently overrepresented on a wide range of mental health problems, particularly anxiety, depression and suicide)

-life chances (as adults, fatherless children are more likely to experience unemployment, have low incomes, remain on social assistance, and experience homelessness)

-future relationships (father absent children tend to enter partnerships earlier, are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions, and are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership)

-mortality (fatherless children are more likely to die as children, and live an average of four years less over the life span)

Given the fact that these and other social problems correlate more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other factor, surpassing race, social class and poverty, father absence may well be the most critical social issue of our time. In Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn calls the crisis of fatherless children “the most destructive trend of our generation.�

- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/co- ... her-hunger
Blind adherence to a collection of superstitious ancient documents and mindless traditions, with no reason or compassion to be found.
The Christian and Jewish experience seem to dismantle this assertion of yours unless you blindly ignore the histories of Christian and Jews. So I must disagree with your characterization based on reason and not just blind blanketed statements I could invent to characterize those that choose to live a lifestyle antithetical to a Bible-based worldview.
To answer the OP, none of these people are adulterers. Adultery is when someone in an exclusive relationship has sexual contact with someone outside the relationship without their partner's consent.
Sounds like a reinvention of swinging to me. It sure isn't adultery because your example is not a "married couple." So, I'm asking, are you saying that if "married partners" (a man and a woman/husband and wife) are OK with the additional sexual partners being approved of, then any number of sex partners are OK because as you write "without the partner's consent" would be the qualifier for adultery?

Now although anyone can choose a life live by their own dictates with agreeable partners helping out, it sounds like what you are presenting would be blind obedience to one's sexual urges based on blind obedience to some kind of group think. Now if the unplanned offspring from ones promiscuity (that make it through the abortion decision of their promiscuous parents) do not care who their genetic parent is, then I guess, the anything goes of a licentious lifestyle would be less harmful to society at large. But reality seems to say otherwise when either a quick look, or a designed, detailed and lengthy examination of the Prison system or mental health industry factor in . . . and to many other woeful consequences for the undesired offspring of the promiscuous . . . that also factor into the consequences of either controlled or uncontrolled lasciviousness.

So, comparing a Biblical based life and worldview for sexuality, versus an unchecked and unfettered hedonism, I know for me and my house, we have made a good choice.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

Haven wrote: This entire issue demonstrates the absurdity of religion-based morality. Blind adherence to a collection of superstitious ancient documents and mindless traditions, with no reason or compassion to be found.

To answer the OP, none of these people are adulterers. Adultery is when someone in an exclusive relationship has sexual contact with someone outside the relationship without their partner's consent.
I absolutely agree. This kind of blind religious judgment on others reeks of mindless religious robots who are totally devoid of any compassion or ability to reason on their own.

To think that there are people who can go around judging other people to be "adulterers" in the situations McCulloch listed based upon ancient texts that are themselves highly bigoted, male-chauvinistic, ignorant, and grossly immoral, is quite literally scary.

Moreover, think of the implications? These religious texts proclaim that any woman who speaks out in church or in other important public matters is a sinner against God. The Bible makes it clear that women are to discuss these important matters in private with their husbands only.

In other words if we press for morality based on these ancient immoral dogmas we would necessarily need to become a highly bigoted and male-chauvinistic society. There's no getting around it.

In fact, if we're truly going to take the Bible seriously as are moral mandate then we would need to kill all non-Christians as heathens, and even kill the women and children of any man who is a heathen. Especially if they are preaching another religion. Because the Bible makes it clear that this is what must be done to anyone who preaches of Gods that are not the God of the Bible.

In truth, it is impossible to hold a society to the Biblical standards of morality without actually becoming the immoral barbarians that the Bible describes early on in the Old Testament.

I can't believe that these modern day Christians jump on their personal pet peeves using the Bible as supportive ammunition whilst totally ignoring anything they personally don't care for that's in the Bible.

It would be highly immoral by today's standards of morality for us to behave as the Bible demands. We'd basically need to behave like the Taliban which ironically every Christian would passionately renounce as being immoral. Yet the Taliban are basically holding up the very same morality that is described in the early books of the Old Testament.

We (including Christians) see that as being extremely immoral and unrealistic.

Yet we still have Christians proclaiming that we should base our morality on these ancient books that no one believes are moral including the Christians themselves.

Bible-based morality is an oxymoron of the highest order.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Post #6

Post by 99percentatheism »

Divine Insight
Haven wrote: This entire issue demonstrates the absurdity of religion-based morality. Blind adherence to a collection of superstitious ancient documents and mindless traditions, with no reason or compassion to be found.

To answer the OP, none of these people are adulterers. Adultery is when someone in an exclusive relationship has sexual contact with someone outside the relationship without their partner's consent.
Adultery is present with a marriage intact. Not to people shacking up.
I absolutely agree. This kind of blind religious judgment on others reeks of mindless religious robots who are totally devoid of any compassion or ability to reason on their own.


Yet you offer no proof of your assertion?
To think that there are people who can go around judging other people to be "adulterers" in the situations McCulloch listed based upon ancient texts that are themselves highly bigoted, male-chauvinistic, ignorant, and grossly immoral, is quite literally scary.
McCuloch's OP is based on something I wrote as an opinion of mine. I made that clear. The child of a in vitro or syringe pregnancy that is not related to one of the married couple is being ignored here by opinions such as yours. Uh yeah.
Moreover, think of the implications? These religious texts proclaim that any woman who speaks out in church or in other important public matters is a sinner against God. The Bible makes it clear that women are to discuss these important matters in private with their husbands only.


Where? Please provide evidence for your demands. "These religious texts?" There are a few references to women being quiet in Church but I believe those are from Paul to a Church congregation right? Jesus had d etailed discussion of theology with a woman whose brother had died while Jesus was away and I notice that Jesus didn't tell her to shutup.
In other words if we press for morality based on these ancient immoral dogmas we would necessarily need to become a highly bigoted and male-chauvinistic society. There's no getting around it.
How many founders of the United States of America were Christians? Several Scandanvian countries have the Cross of Christ on their national flags. How many universities were started as Christian education centers? How many women today are Christians?
In fact, if we're truly going to take the Bible seriously as are moral mandate then we would need to kill all non-Christians as heathens,

and even kill the women and children of any man who is a heathen.

Especially if they are preaching another religion.

Because the Bible makes it clear that this is what must be done to anyone who preaches of Gods that are not the God of the Bible.
Prove that or retract it and issue an apology for being insulting. By the way, the "Christian" portion of "the Bible" is to be found in what is called "The New Testament" section.
In truth, it is impossible to hold a society to the Biblical standards of morality without actually becoming the immoral barbarians that the Bible describes early on in the Old Testament.


Then why didn't the Israelites become immoral barbarians and win the entire "Holy Land" as barbarians? Other than bordering on antisemitism, your assertion here seems historically unfounded.
I can't believe that these modern day Christians jump on their personal pet peeves using the Bible as supportive ammunition whilst totally ignoring anything they personally don't care for that's in the Bible.
Show us what you mean? I dare say it will not bode well for adulterers and "other" sinners that demand that they do not have to repent. BUT, that's just for the Christians by the way.
It would be highly immoral by today's standards of morality for us to behave as the Bible demands.
really" Which of the Beattitudes is unbecoming of a modern society?
We'd basically need to behave like the Taliban which ironically every Christian would passionately renounce as being immoral. Yet the Taliban are basically holding up the very same morality that is described in the early books of the Old Testament.


A person should be banned for equating Christians with the Taliban. It is amazing that this kind of assertion is allowed here.
We (including Christians) see that as being extremely immoral and unrealistic.
If we are to judge you by what you've written above (and below) the terms "immoral and unrealistic" may become truly defining.
Yet we still have Christians proclaiming that we should base our morality on these ancient books that no one believes are moral including the Christians themselves.
Prove that.
Bible-based morality is an oxymoron of the highest order.
The "modern world" of hundreds of millions of people seems to disagree with your firmly held beliefs.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Medical Adultery ?

Post #7

Post by Danmark »

99percentatheism wrote: Suffice it to say, I should have expended my choice neologism in other medical and technical directions.
Does this mean you agree you were wrong when you wrote:
"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition.
[emphasis applied]

In any event, the essence of adultery is faithlessness, sneaking out to have sexual relations with another's marital partner, whether or not an ovum is fertilized. That one or more particular churches or individuals want to turn a word on its head does not make it so.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #8

Post by dianaiad »

Haven wrote: This entire issue demonstrates the absurdity of religion-based morality. Blind adherence to a collection of superstitious ancient documents and mindless traditions, with no reason or compassion to be found.

To answer the OP, none of these people are adulterers. Adultery is when someone in an exclusive relationship has sexual contact with someone outside the relationship without their partner's consent.
Moderator Comment

Be careful making broad sweeping generalizations like your first sentence. Such things need more support than "this entire issue demonstrates...'

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

connermt
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:58 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Medical Adultery ?

Post #9

Post by connermt »

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Scientific adultery, medical adultery, cosmological adultery, mathematical adultery, automotive adultery...the list can be almost limitless.... :lol:
In the case of medical/scientific adultery, it could mean anything that science is capable of doing that annoys/offends an individual no matter how just or silly the individual truly is being. Also, it can make them feel good - "Look ma' - I created a new word!"
Many times, believers tend to like to change/adjust definition of words and in other cases, create totally new definitions.
It's likely a osmossis type of condition learned from books with little to no factual substance.

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #10

Post by Haven »

[color=red]99percentatheism[/color] wrote:A person should be banned for equating Christians with the Taliban. It is amazing that this kind of assertion is allowed here.
I strongly, emphatically disagree. Many fundamentalist Christians share a very similar vision as the Taliban, including the creation of a theocracy based on a rigid interpretation of Christian dogma and featuring virulent sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and opposition to other religious beliefs and non-beliefs. Christian Dominionists come to mind. They are the Western version of the Taliban.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Post Reply