Is contraception immoral...


CatholicLady
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to answer such a silly premise other than to say that I would follow the will of God per the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

?

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood... I thought you said that it's morally ok to kill someone who is going to die anyway, if that means you get to live, because that's 1 life lost instead of 2. Isn't that what you were saying? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is just not true.

 

How is it not the same concept?

 

The concept is that intent matters when it comes to morality. Even if the outcome ends up being the same, the intent may play a significant role in making a particular act moral or immoral.

 

In both scenarios, the friend one and the abortion one, the outcomes are the same (friend gets hurt/baby dies). What changes are the intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone mention walls?

If a discussion of word play, meanings, etc., is offensive, then it is a wall to communication. You put me into a position of being absolutely incapable of furthering the discussion for fear of offending. Therefore I'm left with one of three options. Acquiesce dishonestly, offend you, or walk away.

So I'll walk away.

Don't walk away. You misunderstood what I said. You're not offending. I am simply saying that to a Catholic, the doctrine on abortion is very complex and therefore (at least for those who study it or those who had to take a test on it in Catholic School), having it be understood as simply wordplay is quite... Ok, I don't know what the right word to use.... Laughable or offensive is not friendly to the discussion.... "Shake my head", maybe?

So yeah, I'd rather we add a 4th option... Try to understand where the Catholic doctrine is coming from. You don't have to agree but at least try to see why it's not just wordplay.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is possible...

 

Back in post 217 Claire acknowledged some hairsplitting...  I liked this because it meant I might actually be beginning to understand.  But Claire doesn't speak for all Catholics any more then I speak for all LDS

 

 

 

Indeed they are different...  But do you still use the word Hurt to describe how your friend responded to you? You don't have another word for it do you?  I ask in all seriousness because you seem to use the Kill and abortion differently then most people I have encountered.

 

If through my actions I cause someone to die (in or out of utero).  Even though it was the farthest thing from the thoughts and intent of my heart I would still say that I killed him.  Morally I might be okay  even justified depending on the circumstance, but I would still say I killed him.  From yours and Anatess's post it seems like Catholics have another word for this but I have no idea what it is.

 

Honestly, if it makes more sense to you to use the words "abortion" and "kill", then I don't have a problem with it.

 

Of course, I disagree that removing a cancerous uterus or a damaged tube is an "abortion", just as I would disagree that self defense is murder, but if we have different understandings of what those words mean, then it really is just semantics and unimportant to the issue at hand.

So, do you understand now how intent can play a role in the morality of an act, even if the outcome is the same? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about let's define "intent".  Use in sentence: your intent to do something.  Possible definitions:

 

1)  Intent the desire to something, i.e. your goal.  Definition of "intent" has nothing to consequences, just the goal.

2)  Intent is the desire to do something, and considers the goals, but also the known consequences.  Ie, if you do A and you know B & C will happen.  Do you consider known results B&C into your "intent".  

 

Which definition do you go by?

 

(I'm excluding "intent" having any relationship to unforeseen consequences)

 

 

I would say option one is accurate. If there are two results from an action, we'll call them "A" and "B", and you performed the action because you wanted "A" to happen, then "A" is your intent while "B" is a consequence. 

 

I'm kind of with Vort from a couple pages back, we do all agree that killing an innocent human being is wrong, and our differences stem from trying to define which instances count. I appreciate that we're all passionate about what we believe here, and that's good in and of itself, but we could probably all stand to take a deep breath.

 

LDS and Catholics can probably agree that abortion, in most instances, is bad. We can also agree that why you do stuff matters, and that you need to balance the good and bad results of actions. 

 

Where we disagree is in whether any action is always wrong, or to put it into Catholic parlance, "intrinsically evil." In the Catholic understanding of things, there are actions that you can never perform in any circumstances, because actions themselves can be evil. LDS (if I understand correctly) do not believe that any action is in-and-of itself evil, but becomes evil based on evil intent and/or consequence. Catholics, incidentally, will also say that actions which aren't intrinsically evil can become evil for those same reasons.

 

Now, because Catholics think certain things, like murder, are intrinsically evil, we have to narrow down when specifically "murder" is taking place. In other words, when is it killing somebody, and when is their death an unfortunate side effect. This is not an issue for LDS because killing as-such isn't necessarily evil because you're killing, only because of the consequences and intention (i.e. death and the desire to inflict it). I think this is where a lot of the "hair splitting" comes in, because we are trying to make a distinction that for LDS simply does not need to be made.

 

I still think that the problems are based more on our definitions of good and evil, and more remotely our differences on God's acts of creation. After all, the Augustinian definition of good used by most Catholics (the lack of some good proper to a thing) is largely based on our need to account for evil in a cosmos where everything was created by God. Again, this is not a distinction LDS need to make because God organized the world from pre-existent matter, so any evil would not have had to have been part of God's act of organization.

 

Of course, if I messed anything up on the LDS side of things, I am always open for correction :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you understand now how intent can play a role in the morality of an act, even if the outcome is the same? 

 

Of course I do...  Do you understand now how intent isn't the only thing playing a role in the morality of an act? That our knowledge and understanding of the consequences also play a role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I do...

 

 

Wonderful. :) Though now I'm not sure why we are still having this discussion... 

 

Do you understand now how intent isn't the only thing playing a role in the morality of an act?

 

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In the case of my friend, for example, intent was the only thing that played a role in whether me teling her about her cheating man was moral or immoral. In the case of removing a damaged fallopian tube or uterus with a baby inside, intent is also the only thing that played a role.

 

That our knowledge and understanding of the consequences also play a role?

 

I'm not too sure what you mean by this lol. In both scenarios, we *knew* what the consequences would be. In one, my friend would be hurt, in the other, a baby would die. We always knew those would be the consequences, yet we still ruled both actions moral due to intent.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry...but comparing a friends feelings being hurt because someone actually did right by her (what kind of a jerk friend would not let someone know they were getting cheated on?) to a baby dying...

 

...not working for me.

 

No, lol. Listen.

It's the *concept* that is the same. The concept of an actions with the exact same outcome being either moral or immoral depending on the person's intent.

 

The reason I brought up that scenario is because there seems to be a lack of understanding here of how intent can change the morality of an action with the same outcome.

Now, like I said before, I don't expect any of you to agree that intent alone can change the morality of something that is not already intrinsically sinful. I'm just trying to clear up why/how us Catholics believe what we believe about it. :)

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catching up on the posts. Very interesting discussion, though, my views differ greatly as I'm pro choice. I think I get where both sides are coming from.

 

Using this as a springboard (not necessarily expressing Bini's views). There are a number of Mormons who are pro-choice, while maintaining that abortion is generally morally wrong. The issue for them is whether this particular morality should be legislated on society at large (who may not hold the same views).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood... I thought you said that it's morally ok to kill someone who is going to die anyway, if that means you get to live, because that's 1 life lost instead of 2. Isn't that what you were saying? :(

 

I think TFP has used your example to show the LDS position on abortion. You've stated that the life of the mother is at risk unless the child dies. It's an awful place to be in, but it can be understood why someone would pull the trigger in that scenario. It's also understandable why a person would decide to take the bullet. Hopefully she has the spiritual and emotional support necessary to guide her through either result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Intent, for the purposes of Catholic moral theology, is "why you are doing the thing." In virtually all the cases where abortion is tolerable for LDS but not Catholics, the abortion is not deemed intolerable on the grounds of intent. It is deemed intolerable on the grounds of it being an intrinsic evil, which near as I can tell is a foreign concept to LDS.

 

Directly killing an innocent is always an intrinsic evil, which is the reason most forms of abortion are not tolerable. In the cases where it is tolerable, it is an because it is an unintended consequence of some other action. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, the condition is caused by a faulty tube. Removing the tube is legal because you are treating the condition, even though the baby's death is inevitable. 

 

Again, there are a lot of very good underlying reasons why we disagree. Until those are resolved, we probably aren't going to reach any sort of agreement, only perhaps an understanding.

 

 

Can you clarify for me what constitutes an innocent? I thought we both agreed that self-defense can morally justify killing another. How is a baby that threatens the mother's life innocent (or are we exploring a different case here)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you clarify for me what constitutes an innocent? I thought we both agreed that self-defense can morally justify killing another. How is a baby that threatens the mother's life innocent (or are we exploring a different case here)?

 

The baby is an innocent because it intends no harm, and in fact is not proactively doing anything to threaten another except existing.

 

The condition is perhaps analogous to an unwitting carrier of a deadly disease who arrives (alone) by boat onto the shores of a new land. You cannot communicate with him, and he will imminently contact others, at which point the disease will spread quickly and wipe out 90% or more of the native population. You can do nothing and millions will die, or you can kill the innocent immigrant and save millions. There are no other options. Which do you choose?

 

This type of Hobson's Choice is not new; it is as old as humanity. Generations far older, wiser, and smarter than us have wrestled with it and failed to find a satisfactory solution. The problem is solvable, but only by taking it to a completely different plane of thought. This is what the Catholic Church has valiantly tried (but IMO failed) to do. I honor them for their efforts. We have no good solution, either. A solution or solutions exist, but they will be revealed from God or found by those who live in Zion, or at least who have the hearts to live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TFP has used your example to show the LDS position on abortion. You've stated that the life of the mother is at risk unless the child dies. It's an awful place to be in, but it can be understood why someone would pull the trigger in that scenario. It's also understandable why a person would decide to take the bullet. Hopefully she has the spiritual and emotional support necessary to guide her through either result.

 

Well in his post # 259, he said this:

 

"Hopefully my previous post answered this, but I would say it is the balance of good being done. 2 die or only 1 dies. Only one dying is the better choice, therefore it is the moral choice. Letting the mother die as well is killing her too. So if the only option is to save one, you save one, even if it means killing the other sooner than they might have died otherwise."

It just sounds like the rationale is that, since 1 life lost is better than 2 lives lost, it is not morally wrong to kill an innocent person if that means you can survive instead of you both dying.

 

Folk, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Did you mean to say then that this only applies if the life being taken is the life of an unborn son/daughter verses a born one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful. :) Though now I'm not sure why we are still having this discussion... 

 

 

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In the case of my friend, for example, intent was the only thing that played a role in whether me teling her about her cheating man was moral or immoral. In the case of removing a damaged fallopian tube or uterus with a baby inside, intent is also the only thing that played a role.

 

 

I'm not too sure what you mean by this lol. In both scenarios, we *knew* what the consequences would be. In one, my friend would be hurt, in the other, a baby would die. We always knew those would be the consequences, yet we still ruled both actions moral due to intent.

 

 

 

 

 

Simple... Because earlier in the thread we discussed self defense.  That a person could kill to defend themselves... The Intent would be "To save my life I must kill the one threatening me" and this ok (Depending on circumstances and the intent being true obviously)  But then Catholics added an additional issue.  That is if you know the person is an Innocent.

 

Now don't get me wrong I have no problem with the protection of the innocent.  But as explained to me I took this to mean that Knowledge can change something from acceptable to unacceptable.  In the above case nothing about the intent (which is important) changed. It is still "To save my life I must kill the one threatening me" the only difference is the knowledge of the one threatening.  Are they Innocent?  That answer, that knowledge changes the morality of the action, if I understand correctly the Catholic's position.

 

And this understanding I had held up.  It matched the positions I had seen and known about Catholics and it also (so I thought) helped me see the differences between our two positions (which really isn't all that great to begin with)

 

Then we got to ectopic pregnancy and my understanding vanished.  The intent is still the same, the knowledge is still the same but the morality of the action is different...  When I point this out I get told that I do not understand that I don't get it.  That the intent is "only to remove the damage tube".  I don't buy that, and I consider it a rationalization.  You can't divorce intent from the knowledge of the circumstances.  Case in point if it is "only to remove the damaged tube" then wait a few months, if that is truly what you intend.  But you know they can't because of what they really intend.  I get told that I am stubborn and putting up walls.

 

Then we have Claire she acknowledge my point instead of calling me stubborn and walled off.  She instead pointed out that it is a rather extreme case where one has to act very carefully.  That answer works for me.  I know us mortals can get into trouble when we push our understanding of God's means and methods to hard, because his ways are not our ways.  Thing is... that from the push from other Catholics (and former Catholics) I am not sure if that is just Claire understanding or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you clarify for me what constitutes an innocent? I thought we both agreed that self-defense can morally justify killing another. How is a baby that threatens the mother's life innocent (or are we exploring a different case here)?

 

Hopefully Clair will jump in here too, but in the mean time here's my answer :)

Self defense is when you exert as much force as is necessary in order to try and stop the attack of an aggressor. An unborn baby is not "attacking" his or her mother. It is not the baby's fault that his existence is putting his mom's life at risk. He is completely innocent because he isn't committing any sin, and the fact that his existence is putting his mom's life at risk is 100% due to natural causes, not due to an evil baby deliberately attacking his mom. 

 

An intruder going into your house with a knife and trying to stab you is not the same thing as the presence of a baby inside your body resulting in medical problems.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can you clarify for me what constitutes an innocent? I thought we both agreed that self-defense can morally justify killing another. How is a baby that threatens the mother's life innocent (or are we exploring a different case here)?

 

I pretty much agree with Vort's reply. Whatever harm may come, the child has taken no intentional action to cause it. Self-defense, at least as I understand it, normally carries with it the assumption that the other person is making a conscious effort to do you harm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we got to ectopic pregnancy and my understanding vanished.  The intent is still the same, the knowledge is still the same but the morality of the action is different...  When I point this out I get told that I do not understand that I don't get it.  That the intent is "only to remove the damage tube".  I don't buy that, and I consider it a rationalization.  You can't divorce intent from the knowledge of the circumstances.  Case in point if it is "only to remove the damaged tube" then wait a few months, if that is truly what you intend.  But you know they can't because of what they really intend.  I get told that I am stubborn and putting up walls.

 

Then we have Claire she acknowledge my point instead of calling me stubborn and walled off.  She instead pointed out that it is a rather extreme case where one has to act very carefully.  That answer works for me.  I know us mortals can get into trouble when we push our understanding of God's means and methods to hard, because his ways are not our ways.  Thing is... that from the push from other Catholics (and former Catholics) I am not sure if that is just Claire understanding or not.

 

So just to be perfectly clear... do you, or do you not, understand how a person's intent can change the morality of the action, even when that person knows the outcome? I don't want to make assumptions, but I'm a little confused because you answered "of course I do" just one post ago, but now you're saying different...

 

(For the record, I agree with Clair. I think everyone does. Paying close attention to intent to determine when an act is moral or not, is exactly what she meant by "acting carefully." It definitely is a very fragile thing.) 

EDIT TO ADD: up top you say "the intent is still the same". Lol. That's the problem. The intent is not the same. 

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to be perfectly clear... do you, or do you not, understand how a person's intent can change the morality of the action, even when that person knows the outcome? I don't want to make assumptions, but I'm a little confused because you answered "of course I do" just one post ago, but now you're saying different...

 

(For the record, I agree with Clair. I think everyone does. Paying close attention to intent to determine when an act is moral or not, is exactly what she meant by "acting carefully." It definitely is a very fragile thing.) 

EDIT TO ADD: up top you say "the intent is still the same". Lol. That's the problem. The intent is not the same. 

 

Of course I do...  If I kill someone intending to preserve my life, has a wildly different moral implantations then if I kill someone intending to take their stuff.  However if I kill someone for their stuff and then try to say my intent was really to preserve my life then I should not expect the Lord, the Law or the Church to accept my attempts to rationalize my actions away

 

If you say your intent is "Just to remove a damage tube"  and I say in return  "Ok if that is what all you really intend then wait three months and then do it"  what is your response? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I do...  If I kill someone intending to preserve my life, has a wildly different moral implantations then if I kill someone intending to take their stuff.  However if I kill someone for their stuff and then try to say my intent was really to preserve my life then I should not expect the Lord, the Law or the Church to accept my attempts to rationalize my actions away

 

If you say your intent is "Just to remove a damage tube"  and I say in return  "Ok if that is what all you really intend then wait three months and then do it"  what is your response? 

 

Answer to first paragraph:

 

You are correct. If someone removes their tube, or uterus, or whatever because they want their baby to be dead, it doesn't matter what they "say". God knows what is in their hearts and why they did what they did. That's why it is only morally acceptable if the person truly does not intend for their baby to die, and only removes the tube or uterus because it is damaged/cancerous. That's why I keep saying unintended. The baby dying is an unintended side effect, and even though they know about this side effect, it is still an unintended side effect. Obviously it doesn't matter if they say they did it for one reason but really did it for another reason. What matters is whether or not it was ACTUALLY intended, not whether or not they say it was.

 

Answer to second paragraph:

 

I don't really understand this, to be honest. Why would they need to wait three months? The purpose of removing the tube is because they will die if they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't really understand this, to be honest. Why would they need to wait three months? The purpose of removing the tube is because they will die if they don't.

 

 

Bingo...   They will die because????. 

 

Because an innocent is there.  They know this.  They know the innocent must be killed for them to live.

 

They can not escape this fact...  Every Intention is colored by this knowledge.

 

To say they are "just removing the tube" and that is all that they intent is to deny the totally of the circumstance.  Its kind of like me claiming that I killed in self defense when I have guy's money, and jewelery in my pockets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple... Because earlier in the thread we discussed self defense.  That a person could kill to defend themselves... The Intent would be "To save my life I must kill the one threatening me" and this ok (Depending on circumstances and the intent being true obviously)  But then Catholics added an additional issue.  That is if you know the person is an Innocent.

 

Now don't get me wrong I have no problem with the protection of the innocent.  But as explained to me I took this to mean that Knowledge can change something from acceptable to unacceptable.  In the above case nothing about the intent (which is important) changed. It is still "To save my life I must kill the one threatening me" the only difference is the knowledge of the one threatening.  Are they Innocent?  That answer, that knowledge changes the morality of the action, if I understand correctly the Catholic's position.

 

And this understanding I had held up.  It matched the positions I had seen and known about Catholics and it also (so I thought) helped me see the differences between our two positions (which really isn't all that great to begin with)

 

Then we got to ectopic pregnancy and my understanding vanished.  The intent is still the same, the knowledge is still the same but the morality of the action is different...  When I point this out I get told that I do not understand that I don't get it.  That the intent is "only to remove the damage tube".  I don't buy that, and I consider it a rationalization.  You can't divorce intent from the knowledge of the circumstances.  Case in point if it is "only to remove the damaged tube" then wait a few months, if that is truly what you intend.  But you know they can't because of what they really intend.  I get told that I am stubborn and putting up walls.

 

Then we have Claire she acknowledge my point instead of calling me stubborn and walled off.  She instead pointed out that it is a rather extreme case where one has to act very carefully.  That answer works for me.  I know us mortals can get into trouble when we push our understanding of God's means and methods to hard, because his ways are not our ways.  Thing is... that from the push from other Catholics (and former Catholics) I am not sure if that is just Claire understanding or not.

 

 

Hah... Okay, I see the problem now.

 

Claire said the same thing CatholicLady and I have been trying to say...

 

So, the problem is not the thing.  The problem is how we said it.

 

Okay, Claire, you're now assigned the estradling/TFP Catholic discussion answerer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo...   They will die because????. 

 

Because an innocent is there.  They know this.  They know the innocent must be killed for them to live.

 

They can not escape this fact...  Every Intention is colored by this knowledge.

 

To say they are "just removing the tube" and that is all that they intent is to deny the totally of the circumstance.  Its kind of like me claiming that I killed in self defense when I have guy's money, and jewelery in my pockets

 

 

And we're back to square zero...  Even if the innocent MUST BE KILLED for you to live... the fact still remains that desiring to kill the innocent is a mortal sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo...   They will die because????. 

 

Because an innocent is there.  They know this.  They know the innocent must be killed for them to live.

 

They can not escape this fact...  Every Intention is colored by this knowledge.

 

To say they are "just removing the tube" and that is all that they intent is to deny the totally of the circumstance.  Its kind of like me claiming that I killed in self defense when I have guy's money, and jewelery in my pockets

 

Lol, well first of all, there's no way of "unintentionally" having the guy's stuff in your pockets. ;)

And regardless of whether it's the baby's growth or not that is causing the tube to be damaged, doesn't matter. There is now a damaged tube that needs removal. The intent is still not to kill the baby, and the tube still needs to be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share