The points in the answer I'm about to give were alluded to in other posts by myself and by otheres. In fact, I was going to reply to Huk's last post and remove you completely from the equation, because the arguments being made, not you, are my main concern.
With the offering of your personal experience in this matter, you've effectively, though unintentionally perhaps, poisoned the well. No one can criticize the process without becoming, in the eyes of your friends, a censorious, uneducated bastard of questionable parenting skills attacking the whole layfamily.
Being seen as such alreadly in this forum, yielding in this case would seem to profit little.
So I'll engage you just one more time on this matter.
This ain't the first time you've been told, and I ain't the only one who has told you, but you often don't make much sense. Explain to me why you would prohibit a person from having children on the basis of the danger of (the rate) implantation via IVF, but, it's ok to endanger the embryos with the knowledge that (the lack of) implantation is a frequent cause of the failure to come to full development and delivery?
Citing the duty of a husband and wife to yield their bodies one to another, regardless of the outcome of the act:
In the one case God is responsible, being the Creator of the act and the One who ordained the act to be the door by which new life is to enter the world, and being the One who kills and makes alive (Deuteronomy 32:39).
In the other case, where the natural act is circumvented (or otherwise adapted to the lab environment), the clients and the techs are responsible, that responsibility, along with a host of parental responsibilities, being imposed with the 'creation' of the test tube babies to begin with, if they are indeed babies.
In the marriage bed, one is not playing dice with human beings. In the lab, one is, if they are indeed children.
In the marriage bed, the act is to be the thing. The focus of the lovers in the Song is one another, and only one another, not the possible outcome of their trysts.
By ensuring they don't get aborted? By ensuring they live in a healthy wholesome God-honoring home, rather than a hell-hole where they are taught to sling crack from their teen-age years? I could think of a whole host of God-ordained gospel oriented family-focused reasons how God promises long life to those who obey Him. Sounds to me like you're the one who is attempting to dogmatically and legalistically attempting bind men's consciences and thwart the sovereign revealed will of God.
And the same gospel oriented family-focused reasons wouldn't suggest the responsibility to maximize the chances of the survival of the test tube children by finding a less phobic uterus in which to implant them? If they are indeed children?
I told you long ago that you need to learn how to interpret and apply the Bible, and once again you prove why I said that. Romans 14 isn't a list of prohibitions (though Paul does give such lists contextually elsewhere with that purpose in some of his writings), but it is dealing with charity towards those that are weaker, as well as not being argumentatively censorious towards those whom you have doubtful disputations. First it is over the matter of food, then days, then drink. To limit the application of his purpose to the material things mentioned (food, drink, days) by Paul is simply myopic.
I don't limit the application to food and drink. The application is limited to things
like them. And you cannot apply this to test tube babies, unless they're not really babies.
I will continue this engagement in reply to your subsequent post.
www.theblaze.com
