Is contraception immoral...

[Guest]

I have no argument with the double effect rule per se, but I don't recognize it as any sort of gospel-based principle, just a philosophical point based in how the world seems to work.

 

That said, I think you're missing the point of the (admittedly imperfect) parable. The man's very presence on the bridge is causing a mechanism to drive a knife into your gut, millimeter by millimeter. The man himself is doomed, though he doesn't realize it, since the entire bridge will collapse when he attempts to get off (or when the knife penetrates your abdomen). In other words, the man is as good as dead -- and he doesn't even have a cell phone to call his wife or any paper to write out a last will and testament. Your choice is simply this: (1) Kill the man and live while the man dies, or (2) don't kill the man and die while the man dies.

 

You have a religious reason for trying to distinguish between whether the man dies by sniping or by grenade or by the bridge falling down, but (as far as the parable goes) Latter-day Saints have no such religious reason. To us, it's a simple matter of one dies vs. two die.

 

Vort... really... the LDS has a hard time making sense of this because they're not used to thinking of the ex nihilo factor.  Under ex nihilo perspective, God does not make mistakes.  Each person is created by God out of love for that person and no other reason (the person did not exist because he wanted to exist - only because God wants him to exist).  The fetus (or even the guy on the bridge) did not do anything... anything at all... that would make that creation forfeit.  Therefore, our rendering of his life forfeit is contrary to God's creation.  It's really that simple.  As a Church, the Catholics have to make policies that puts people as far from the edge as can be possible.  Killing a fetus outright is at that edge.  It leaves God out of the act of ending that life.  Taking the fallopian tube without any desire to kill the fetus is man taking out a fallopian tube, God ending the life of the baby.

 

It's really the simplest way I can explain this thing.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[CatholicLady]

I get that.... it just seems disingenuous to me.

 

Lets parable it.  Lets say there is a guy on a bridge and because he is on the bridge my life is in danger.  Due to the circumstances of the parable I only have three options, Sniper shoot him, Grenade him, or attack the bridge so that it collapses and kills him.

 

I know that all three actions will kill the guy on the bridge.  I know that.  To try to say "well I didn't really kill him when I attacked the bridge" is a flat out attempt shift responsibility for an action I knowingly took which I knew the consequence of.

 

So I have a hard time accepting that God would hold me less responsible for taking out the bridge and killing the guy then he would the sniper shot killing the guy.

 

Actually, if your *intent* is to kill him (which in this example, it is), then yes, it would still be wrong. Whether you kill him by blowing up the bridge or by shooting him, doesn't matter, because your intent is to kill him.

The removal of a damaged fellopian tube is not intended as a means to kill the child. It's like a pregnant woman undergoing chemotherapy. The chemo may kill her unborn baby, but she holds no culpability of wrongdoing because the baby dying is an *un intended consequence* of an attempt to treat cancer.  

 

You can't say the removal of a damaged fellopian tube is an abortion, any more than you can say undergoing chemo is an abortion. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatholicLady

[CatholicLady]

I'm assuming this guy on the bridge is just an innocent bystander...  but yes, I can't really find a plausible circumstance that his being on the bridge puts me in mortal danger... but let's just ignore that and go with the parable.

 

Yes, in Catholic theology, sniper shooting the guy is sinful, taking out the bridge isn't.

 

If the intent is to kill the innocent man, they would both be sinful in Catholic theology.

[CatholicLady]

Like I say its hard to have an exact match...  For the purposes of this parable this Guy is both innocent and doomed to die no matter what, and this is also known to us

 

Your last bit is pretty much the LDS position  There are tough scenarios with a ton of variables and the LDS Church will allow for prudential judgment to be made by the mother. (That is what we mean when we say the Mother should prayerfully consider the council of doctors and her Church leaders)  Yet we get grief for acknowledging that there are such positions and for the LDS Church saying in such cases it is up to the mother.

 

I don't think the last bit is the LDS position, based on what y'all have taught me. (to be clear, I am not giving you grief, my friend :) )

 

The LDS position is that a woman may have an abortion if her life is in danger (after much prayer, counsel, etc etc). The Catholic position is that you may NEVER have an abortion. EVER.

 

The Catholic position is that if you are pregnant and have cancer, you MAY undergo chemo after much prayer, counsel, etc.

 

But you may never ever ever have an abortion. Ever. For no reason, ever. Lol. 

[Jane_Doe]

Vort... really... the LDS has a hard time making sense of this because they're not used to thinking of the ex nihilo factor.  Under ex nihilo perspective, God does not make mistakes.  Each person is created by God out of love for that person and no other reason (the person did not exist because he wanted to exist - only because God wants him to exist).  The fetus (or even the guy on the bridge) did not do anything... anything at all... that would make that creation forfeit.  Therefore, our rendering of his life forfeit is contrary to God's creation.  It's really that simple.  As a Church, the Catholics have to make policies that puts people as far from the edge as can be possible.  Killing a fetus outright is at that edge.  It leaves God out of the act of ending that life.  Taking the fallopian tube without any desire to kill the fetus is man taking out a fallopian tube, God ending the life of the baby.

 

It's really the simplest way I can explain this thing.

 

(The following is Jane ungracefully trying to grasp Catholic thought)

 

1)  In Catholic view, God does not make mistakes.  

2)  In an etopic pregancy, the fetus has no chance of being born and growing into an adult.

Therefore, in Catholic view, God never really meant for the etopic pregnancy fetus to become a baby (cause it won't).  

Therefore, if you abort a etopic pregnancy, you're not really killing a baby because that fertilized egg will never become a baby.

 

Am I following right?

[CatholicLady]

Vort... really... the LDS has a hard time making sense of this because they're not used to thinking of the ex nihilo factor.  Under ex nihilo perspective, God does not make mistakes.  Each person is created by God out of love for that person and no other reason (the person did not exist because he wanted to exist - only because God wants him to exist).  The fetus (or even the guy on the bridge) did not do anything... anything at all... that would make that creation forfeit.  Therefore, our rendering of his life forfeit is contrary to God's creation.  It's really that simple.  As a Church, the Catholics have to make policies that puts people as far from the edge as can be possible.  Killing a fetus outright is at that edge.  It leaves God out of the act of ending that life.  Taking the fallopian tube without any desire to kill the fetus is man taking out a fallopian tube, God ending the life of the baby.

 

It's really the simplest way I can explain this thing.

 

This is great! Thanks Anna!

[Guest]

(The following is Jane ungracefully trying to grasp Catholic thought)

 

1)  In Catholic view, God does not make mistakes.  

2)  In an etopic pregancy, the fetus has no chance of being born and growing into an adult.

Therefore, in Catholic view, God never really meant for the etopic pregnancy fetus to become a baby (cause it won't).  

Therefore, if you abort a etopic pregnancy, you're not really killing a baby because that fertilized egg will never become a baby.

 

Am I following right?

 

No.  Spirit and Body are created at conception.  The baby is a baby when the sperm meets the egg. 

[CatholicLady]

(The following is Jane ungracefully trying to grasp Catholic thought)

 

1)  In Catholic view, God does not make mistakes.  

2)  In an etopic pregancy, the fetus has no chance of being born and growing into an adult.

Therefore, in Catholic view, God never really meant for the etopic pregnancy fetus to become a baby (cause it won't).  

Therefore, if you abort a etopic pregnancy, you're not really killing a baby because that fertilized egg will never become a baby.

 

Am I following right?

 

 

1. Correct.

 

2. Incorrect, lol.

 

You can't abort an "ectopic" pregnancy. You may remove the damaged fellopian tube. The child dying is an unintended consequence.

 

Any time killing the child is the intended act, it is wrong. No matter what. Even if that means both mother and child would die, it would still be wrong to abort a baby. It is intrinsically wrong to kill a baby. Removing a damaged fellopian tube is not intrinsically wrong. The baby will die as an unintended consequence, but the death of the baby is not the desired end result. 

 

Does that make sense?  

[Jane_Doe]

No.  Spirit and Body are created at conception.  The baby is a baby when the sperm meets the egg. 

 

Then what of all naturally accruing abortions, including the very large number which happen before the girl even knows she's pregnant?

[Vort]

So if it's "God ending the life of the baby" when you surgically remove the fallopian tube, why not just let the fallopian tube burst and the woman die in agony? That's obviously God's will -- isn't it?

 

Suppose we had the technology (and I expect we will in a decade or two) to resolve an ectopic pregnancy by selectively removing the zygote without destroying the fallopian tube. Would that contradict Catholic doctrine? Would a faithful Catholic woman be expected to sacrifice her fallopian tube in order to avoid offending God?

 

Sincere questions, by the way. I'm not looking to stir up contention, I'm trying to understand the doctrine and the mindset.

[Guest]

Then what of all naturally accruing abortions, including the very large number which happen before the girl even knows she's pregnant?

 

God has the power (and authority) to create life and end life.  Why he ends a life that has not yet seen light of day - we don't know.  We don't all know the reasons God does what He does.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

I just realize I have been misusing the term "zygote". In an ectopic pregnancy, the zygote implants in the fallopian tube or somewhere else outside the uterus, and very quickly it's no longer a zygote. My apologies for my inaccuracy.

[estradling75]

If the intent is to kill the innocent man, they would both be sinful in Catholic theology.

 

And I am calling this hair splitting...  We know that removing the tube kills the innocent.  As much as we try to dress it up and say we "didn't intend to" we know that if we take that action the innocent dies and we choose it anyways.  We can dress up all kinds of horrible acts with the statement "We had good intentions"

[Jane_Doe]

1. Correct.

 

2. Incorrect, lol.

 

You can't abort an "ectopic" pregnancy. You may remove the damaged fellopian tube. The child dying is an unintended consequence.

 

Any time killing the child is the intended act, it is wrong. No matter what. Even if that means both mother and child would die, it would still be wrong to abort a baby. It is intrinsically wrong to kill a baby. Removing a damaged fellopian tube is not intrinsically wrong. The baby will die as an unintended consequence, but the death of the baby is not the desired end result. 

 

Does that make sense?  

 

When I study other faiths (or other people in general), I've learned to put myself in their shoes and think as they would think (which is different than how I would think).

 

So, putting on my CatholicLady shoes, I can see follow you thoughts and understand your perspective.  PS- you're good at explaining things.

 

My Jane "shoes" and thought processes are different, and lead to a different conclusion.  But that's a whole different story (and we've beaten it to death).

[CatholicLady]

Look at it this way, Jane Doe/Estradling/Vort/anyone else reading this lol....

 

Imagine someone telling you, "I will kill you and your daughter. But if you kill your daughter, I will set you free and you may live. So you have 2 choices... either you and your daughter die, or you kill your daughter and you live." Do you think it would still be moral to kill your daughter?

 

The way I see it is, no, it would not. (Your culpability may be greatlly lessened, but that's God's judgement to make. As far as we are taught, killing your innocent daughter is still objectively immoral). 

 

Abortion is the same thing. Since a human fetus is still a living human being, the woman faced with the above scenario is facing the exact same thing as a pregnant woman who's life is in danger. While her culpability may be lessened for having an abortion, an abortion is still objectively immoral, the same way as killing your innocent daughter is objectively immoral. Because it's the same thing. 

Now imagine this scenario:

There is a bomb strapped to your daughter's chest. The bomb is set to go off and kill you both. The only way to stop the bomb is to plunge a knife through it. But since the bomb is strapped to your daughter's chest, there is the likelyhood that your daughter would die in the process. You decide to go ahead and destroy the bomb by stabbing it with a knife. Your daughter dies. Since your intent was to destroy the bomb, and not to kill your daughter, this scenario is different from the scenario above.

 

Removing a damaged fellopian tube is the same way. You remove the damaged fellopian tube, and your child dies as an unintended consequence. Your intent is not to kill your child.

 

Does this make sense?  

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Guest]

I need to start prefacing my post with....

 

THIS IS CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT... lest people think since my religious affiliation is LDS that I'm talking as an LDS.

 

So if it's "God ending the life of the baby" when you surgically remove the fallopian tube, why not just let the fallopian tube burst and the woman die in agony? That's obviously God's will -- isn't it?

 

No.  There is God's will and there is Man's will.  For example - Adam getting kicked out of the Garden is not God's will but Man's will.  The agony of the woman would be man's will - God's will is expressed in the righteous application of a doctor's God-given knowledge of such procedures.

 

And you'll need to go back to Claire's explanation of "does God create evil?"... in this case, baby ending up in a fallopian tube...

 

Suppose we had the technology (and I expect we will in a decade or two) to resolve an ectopic pregnancy by selectively removing the zygote without destroying the fallopian tube. Would that contradict Catholic doctrine? Would a faithful Catholic woman be expected to sacrifice her fallopian tube in order to avoid offending God?

 

Yes, it will contradict Catholic doctrine.  A faithful Catholic person is expected to take out his left arm if such an arm does things that offend God.  Or an eye... So, a missing body part is better than offending God.

 

Then, of course, you're gonna say... but, she could have had more babies!  Just because some good in the future comes from committing a sin does not make the sin less sinful.

[CatholicLady]

Then what of all naturally accruing abortions, including the very large number which happen before the girl even knows she's pregnant?

 Hm?

 

Someone dying of ntural consequences is different from you killing them, dont you think?

[Guest]

I'm speaking as an LDS here:

 

And I am calling this hair splitting...  We know that removing the tube kills the innocent.  As much as we try to dress it up and say we "didn't intend to" we know that if we take that action the innocent dies and we choose it anyways.  We can dress up all kinds of horrible acts with the statement "We had good intentions"

 

Estradling, with all due respect... in LDS (as well as Catholic) dogma... INTENT is everything.  Hence, the absolute requirement of FREE AGENCY in the Plan of Salvation.  We are not judged by our actions.  We are judged by our INTENT.  It is taught everywhere - what is in your heart is what is judged.

 

Therefore, anybody doing horrible acts is judged by Christ according to his Intentions (which is, of course, predicated by his knowledge).  A person doing something bad because he doesn't know any better is subject to Christ's Atoning Mercy.  In the same token, a person who merely glances at another person can be judged as an adulterer by the content of his heart.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[CatholicLady]

I'm speaking as an LDS here:

 

 

Estradling, with all due respect... in LDS (as well as Catholic) dogma... INTENT is everything.  Hence, the absolute requirement of FREE AGENCY in the Plan of Salvation.  We are not judged by our actions.  We are judged by our INTENT.  It is taught everywhere - what is in your heart is what is judged.

 

Therefore, anybody doing horrible acts is judged by Christ according to his Intentions (which is, of course, predicated by his knowledge).  A person doing something bad because he doesn't know any better is subject to Christ's Atoning Mercy.  In the same token, a person who merely glances at another person can be judged as an adulterer by the content of his heart.

 

YES!

[estradling75]

I'm speaking as an LDS here:

 

 

Estradling, with all due respect... in LDS (as well as Catholic) dogma... INTENT is everything.  Hence, the absolute requirement of FREE AGENCY in the Plan of Salvation.  We are not judged by our actions.  We are judged by our INTENT.  It is taught everywhere - what is in your heart is what is judged.

 

Therefore, anybody doing horrible acts is judged by Christ according to his Intentions (which is, of course, predicated by his knowledge).  A person doing something bad because he doesn't know any better is subject to Christ's Atoning Mercy.  In the same token, a person who merely glances at another person can be judged as an adulterer by the content of his heart.

 

And I am saying INTENT is messy.  If we do something that we know will harm another.. but we do it with "Good INTENT" it does not make the harm go away or not happen.  Case in point the LDS position on abortion is based on Good intent for the Church not to inflect additional sorrow.  But our GOOD INTENT is not enough to mitigate the ACTION in the eyes of the Catholics here

 

And we have come full circle again where the INTENT of the LDS position doesn't matter to the Catholics.  It is hardly fair to say Catholic INTENT matter but LDS does not

[Jane_Doe]

Look at it this way, Jane Doe/Estradling/Vort/anyone else reading this lol....

 

Imagine someone telling you, "I will kill you and your daughter. But if you kill your daughter, I will set you free and you may live. So you have 2 choices... either you and your daughter die, or you kill your daughter and you live." Do you think it would still be moral to kill your daughter?

 

The way I see it is, no, it would not. (Your culpability may be greatlly lessened, but that's God's judgement to make. As far as we are taught, killing your innocent daughter is still objectively immoral). 

 

Abortion is the same thing. Since a human fetus is still a living human being, the woman faced with the above scenario is facing the exact same thing as a pregnant woman who's life is in danger. While her culpability may be lessened for having an abortion, an abortion is still objectively immoral, the same way as killing your innocent daughter is objectively immoral. Because it's the same thing. 

Now imagine this scenario:

There is a bomb strapped to your daughter's chest. The bomb is set to go off and kill you both. The only way to stop the bomb is to plunge a knife through it. But since the bomb is strapped to your daughter's chest, there is the likelyhood that your daughter would die in the process. You decide to go ahead and destroy the bomb by stabbing it with a knife. Your daughter dies. Since your intent was to destroy the bomb, and not to kill your daughter, this scenario is different from the scenario above.

 

Removing a damaged fellopian tube is the same way. You remove the damaged fellopian tube, and your child dies as an unintended consequence. Your intent is not to kill your child.

 

Does this make sense?  

 

 

Now back in my LDS shoes--

 

I think the issue a lot of people are having issue reconciling is that it's ok to remove a fertilized egg in the fallopian tube (via removing the tube) but not ok to remove a uterus with a fertilized egg in it-- even if both said eggs have severe defects and won't make it to term (either because they're in the fallopian tube or some other valid can't-save-it medical reason). 

 

In the LDS perspective, terminating a fallopian ectopic pregnancy is morally the same as terminating any other case when the fertilized egg won't make it to term and will threaten the mother's life.  

 

Side note, comparing things to bombs or guys on bridges is just adding to my confusion  

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[CatholicLady]

And I am saying INTENT is messy.  If we do something that we know will harm another.. but we do it with "Good INTENT" it does not make the harm go away or not happen.  Case in point the LDS position on abortion is based on Good intent for the Church not to inflect additional sorrow.  But our GOOD INTENT is not enough to mitigate the ACTION in the eyes of the Catholics here

 

And we have come full circle again where the INTENT of the LDS position doesn't matter to the Catholics.  It is hardly fair to say Catholic INTENT matter but LDS does not

 

Estradling... it's actually not about good intent or bad intent. It's about intent, period. If you kill a baby with "good intent", it's still imoral.

 

A baby dying as a result of some sort of necessary treatment (chemo/tube removal), is not immoral. It's your intent to NOT kill the baby that matters, not whether or not your intent is good or bad or whatever. 

 

Did you see my post where I laid out 2 scenarios?

[Jane_Doe]

 Hm?

 

Someone dying of ntural consequences is different from you killing them, dont you think?

 

(Still trying to understand Catholic thought)

 

I admit my thoughts were drifting from the is-abortion-sinful topic, to more the fate of the babies themselves.  

 

In my very limited understanding of Catholic thought, a person must be baptized sacramentally.  "Person" includes everyone, even babies.  Now I'm being told that "baby" includes even those unborn, or even those which miscarry (>20% of pregnancies).   What is a good-intending-Catholic to do?  And then you add in a large number of pregnancies miscarry <2 weeks in and Mom never knows she's pregnant... just what are you supposed to do?

 

My head is slightly spinning.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Blackmarch]

One of the beauties of the atonement is that we don't have to worry about the things which we don't have control over.

[estradling75]

Estradling... it's actually not about good intent or bad intent. It's about intent, period. If you kill a baby with "good intent", it's still imoral.

 

A baby dying as a result of some sort of necessary treatment (chemo/tube removal), is not immoral. It's your intent to NOT kill the baby that matters, not whether or not your intent is good or bad or whatever. 

 

Did you see my post where I laid out 2 scenarios?

 

I did see your examples they had the same problem mine did.

 

If someone knows what the results are of an action they are about to take; chooses to take that action anyway then they intended for that results of that action to happen.  They simply justify it that something else was more important.

 

If you know that cutting out the tube will cause the infant to die.. then cutting out the tube means you intended at some level for the infant to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice, you wished you had other options, but you made the best choice you can.

 

If I know that stabbing my daughter would kill her.  And I do it to stop a bomb that would kill us both, then at some level I intended my daughter to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice that I wished I never had to make, but I made the best choice I could.

 

I can see intent covering when we don't know what is going to happen...  But when we have knowledge of what is going to happen, we can't the say known consequence wasn't what we intended, the best we can say is we wished it wouldn't have happened.