• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hypocrisy, yes or no?

William Smith said:
For the sake of brevity, I went with die-hard Christian and Republican from Arizona. Avoiding to offend anyone's beliefs, I considered this an acceptable ballpark for my inquiry, although I usually try to avoid broad generalisations.

Also inside this park: No same sex relations, no abortions whatsoever, no pre-marital sex, no condoms and no Muslims.
Less taxes, small government, less gun control, unilateral US foreign policy and stricter immigration laws.
Click to expand...

And none of that speaks to views on IVF.
 
theprestige said:
And I still don't see how "extreme viewpoints are not widely held" is a novel idea, or how "hypocrisy discredits a given ideal" is a productive idea.
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy can certainly point to an ideal being impractical and unrealistic. Take a look at abstinence only education.
 
It's only hypocritical if he was against the concept itself, regardless of his religion. If he wants it for himself but denies it to others, that's pure hypocrisy. If he was initially against it because of his religion, then changed his mind and say "oh I'm OK with it after all", it also makes him a bit of a hypocrite, but really, it depends on his actual stance on the subject.
 
William Smith said:
Perhaps you misunderstood the OP, or you are overthinking it. Thank you for your contribution.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the others, but I'm actually responding to your "overall point", as you described it here:

William Smith said:
And those churchgoing catholics who have had IVF could be called hypocrites, or at least opportunists, right?

My overall point is not to call them names, denounce them as bad citizens and put them on a pillory. We should all dicks our own potatoes.

The point is to show, over time and numerous examples, that these hardline-no-exceptions positions - anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-birth control, etc. - have become untenable in a rational democratic society.

So untenable that even conservative bible thumpers think they should not be followed.
Click to expand...

It's not your OP I'm having trouble with, it's your point.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hypocrisy can certainly point to an ideal being impractical and unrealistic. Take a look at abstinence only education.
Click to expand...

Or take a look at political corruption.

Consider William Smith's overall point:

William Smith said:
The point is to show, over time and numerous examples, that these hardline-no-exceptions positions... have become untenable in a rational democratic society.
Click to expand...

We can certainly find numerous examples over time of political corruption. Does this show that hardline-no-exception positions towards political corruption "have become untenable in a rational democractic society"?

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm sure there are plenty of religious teachings that are discreditable and should be discredited. But I'm also pretty sure that William Smith's hypocrisy-therefore-untenable argument rather tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
William Smith said:
Simplify and disregard my point. Do you have an opinion on my OP?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the answer to the question asked in your OP is most likely "no", or possibly "can't be answered until the terms are defined", with a long shot option of "once you've defined "die-hard etc" and "bible and party law", a few minutes of investigoogling should effectively answer your question".
 
Side note: In my opinion, IVF is weakening the gene pool by failing to select out sets of genes unable to reproduce on their own. On a personal level, my apologies to anyone here who used IVF. It's an observer-outside-humanity opinion I hold of it, and I fully understand the personal reasons why people choose to use it.
 
Almo said:
Side note: In my opinion, IVF is weakening the gene pool by failing to select out sets of genes unable to reproduce on their own. On a personal level, my apologies to anyone here who used IVF. It's an observer-outside-humanity opinion I hold of it, and I fully understand the personal reasons why people choose to use it.
Click to expand...

Since infertility has numerous causes, do you know of any studies that have looked at the offspring of couples who have undergone IVF, and whether they can reproduce?

I'm not asking for you to provide evidence; I'm just curious if you know this to be the case.
 
Emet said:
Since infertility has numerous causes, do you know of any studies that have looked at the offspring of couples who have undergone IVF, and whether they can reproduce?

I'm not asking for you to provide evidence; I'm just curious if you know this to be the case.
Click to expand...

Well my sister had IVF because of polycystic ovaries - which does tend to run in families. So any daughters she had would also be at increased risk of PCOS, but with males, the relevant gene seems to be expressed as male pattern baldness/high testosterone levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9920059
 
William Smith said:
Perhaps you misunderstood the OP,
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps, I did. Let me go back the the OP.

William Smith said:
The question:

Am I correct when I call this a double standard or is IVF in line with bible and party law?
Click to expand...


I say the answer is "no you are not correct to call this a double standard." I am, however, prepared to change my position if you can show me specific Bible verses that require Christians to avoid IVF.
 
Ladewig said:
I say the answer is "no you are not correct to call this a double standard." I am, however, prepared to change my position if you can show me specific Bible verses that require Christians to avoid IVF.
Click to expand...

We might also add die hard Republicans. Some radical Republicans have introduced legislation to in effect ban IVF. But it's pretty fringe, I think.

Example.
 
Hard-line anti-abortionists (of which I may be one) generally consider each embryo to be a human life. IVF generally creates embryos that are later destroyed.
There is certainly at least the potential for "life at conception" anti-abortionists who still support or even permit IVF to be hypocrits. It would primarily depend on whether they demand any restrictions on the creation and/or use of unimplanted embryos.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Hard-line anti-abortionists (of which I may be one) generally consider each embryo to be a human life. IVF generally creates embryos that are later destroyed.
There is certainly at least the potential for "life at conception" anti-abortionists who still support or even permit IVF to be hypocrits. It would primarily depend on whether they demand any restrictions on the creation and/or use of unimplanted embryos.
Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for that.
But not all die hard Republicans share that view--is that correct?
 
Emet said:
Okay. Thanks for that.
But not all die hard Republicans share that view--is that correct?
Click to expand...

Certainly not. I'm not really sure what a "die hard" member of either major political party stands for today other than the furtherance of candidates associated with that party.
 
William Smith said:
I think you can either have the bible and Republican party line on one hand or IVF, same sex relations, being pro-choice and the like.

I do not think they mix at all - especially not if one is a hardliner. I am pretty much thinking the same as Sun Countess and that is my reason for calling him a hypocrite. I would appreciate more input.
Click to expand...
I never heard of Republican Party being against IVF.

Catholic church is against IVF, but most Protestant churches are not. Most hardline Republicans in US are Protestants.

So no, I do not think any hypocrisy is involved.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Certainly not. I'm not really sure what a "die hard" member of either major political party stands for today other than the furtherance of candidates associated with that party.
Click to expand...

I understand the term die-hard in this case to:

- be uncritical of positions other party members and supporters hold
- be supportive (or at least not openly against) positions other party members and supporters hold
- want to further party influence (increase market share, if you like) by any means necessary
- never voting against the party/bill/etc.
- never voting for another party/bill/etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom