Is contraception immoral...


CatholicLady
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Lol, well first of all, there's no way of "unintentionally" killing the child when the whole point of removing the tube is to stop the child from growing and killing the mother.

 

The tube needs to be removed, but if your intent is not to kill the baby then you should wait and not have a major surgical   operation that is guaranteed to kill the baby while you are pregnant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, well first of all, there's no way of "unintentionally" killing the child when the whole point of removing the tube is to stop the child from growing and killing the mother.

 

The tube needs to be removed, but if your intent is not to kill the baby then you should wait and not have a major surgical   operation that is guaranteed to kill the baby while you are pregnant

 

No, that is not the whole point. The tube is damaged and needs to be removed regardless.

And regardless of whether you wait or not, you will still need surgery to remove the tube, and the baby will still die. There is no reason for there to be moral obligation to wait.

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not the whole point. The tube is damaged and needs to be removed regardless.

And regardless of whether you wait or not, you will still need surgery to remove the tube, and the baby will still die. There is no reason for there to be moral obligation to wait.

 

No moral obligation to against killing an innocent????!!!!  What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

It's a silly premise because A. When on earth is this ever going to actually happen and, B. It's presuming only two options, 1 dies or 2 die. But there are other options. Personally, I'd just shoot the guy holding the gun to my head instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me, Estradling, that you agree that intent can change the morality of an act.

 

What you don't agree with is that the specific issue we are discussing applies. Honestly, I have no problem with that. :)

I am not here to try to convert any of you to Catholicism, so I really hope I'm not giving off that impression. Moral theology is something I really enjoy discussing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No moral obligation to against killing an innocent????!!!!  What?

 

No moral obligation to wait for the removal of the damaged tube, for the reasons I explained above. I hope you understood those reasons, even if you don't agree.

 

The baby dying is still an unintended side effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not here to try to convert any of you to Catholicism, 

 

A bit off topic...but....

 

Speaking of converting Mormons to other religions: I saw a billboard yesterday here in Utah that said something along the lines of.

 

THE BIBLE. INSPIRED. AUTHORITATIVE. FINAL.

 

And I couldn't help but think to myself, these people have absolutely no idea how to reach out to Mormons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a silly premise because A. When on earth is this ever going to actually happen and, B. It's presuming only two options, 1 dies or 2 die. But there are other options. Personally, I'd just shoot the guy holding the gun to my head instead.

 

Well, stuff like this actually does happen in prisoner of war scenarios. Not with parent/child, but with fellow soldiers being forced to kill the other lest they both die.

 

But anyway, yes, I set this up as a hypothetical scenario in order to gain a better understanding of your moral theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No moral obligation to wait for the removal of the damaged tube, for the reasons I explained above. I hope you understood those reasons, even if you don't agree.

 

The baby dying is still an unintended side effect.

 

That is where I have to disagree...  The baby is the whole point, everything is about the baby.  There is no way you accidentally kill the baby in this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, stuff like this actually does happen in prisoner of war scenarios. Not with parent/child, but with fellow soldiers being forced to kill the other lest they both die.

 

But anyway, yes, I set this up as a hypothetical scenario in order to gain a better understanding of your moral theology.

 

In war, as with medical situations, I would follow what I felt the Spirit guided me to do. Beyond that, I cannot say. Logically, if two soldiers were brought out, surrounded by armed guards, and one was given a gun and told to shoot the other or they'd both die...

 

Yeah...I'd probably still pick out the nastiest guard and put one between his eyes. But, once again...not the same situation. You're probably going to die anyhow.

 

Personally, I'd rather die than live with myself having shot someone in cold blood. But that is not something I would dare judge another on as having done wrong if they chose to shoot their fellow prisoner instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where I have to disagree...  The baby is the whole point, everything is about the baby.  There is no way you accidentally kill the baby in this case

 

I don't know if "accidentally" is the right word, and that's why I haven't used it.

 

That's why we keep saying that killing the baby is not the desired end result of removing a damaged tube, a cancerous uterus, etc. Just as drowsiness in not the desired end result of a narcotic. But I'm not sure I would say they are "accidents."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In war, as with medical situations, I would follow what I felt the Spirit guided me to do. Beyond that, I cannot say. Logically, if two soldiers were brought out, surrounded by armed guards, and one was given a gun and told to shoot the other or they'd both die...

 

Yeah...I'd probably still pick out the nastiest guard and put one between his eyes. But, once again...not the same situation. You're probably going to die anyhow.

 

Personally, I'd rather die than live with myself having shot someone in cold blood. But that is not something I would dare judge another on as having done wrong if they chose to shoot their fellow prisoner instead.

 

Folk, I was merely trying to confirm that your rationale is this:

 

It is moral to kill an innocent person if not killing him means you will both die, because it is better for 1 person to die than 2.

 

I was just making sure that's what you actually meant by your post #259.

 

As far as judging them goes, you are correct that culpability is only for God to judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is moral to kill an innocent person if not killing him means you will both die, because it is better for 1 person to die than 2.

 

That is what I said.

 

But don't twist it to include scenarios where there are other options. If the ONLY option is the SURE death of both or death of 1, then death of 1 is better.

 

I don't know that it's entirely a decision of morality however. It's a logical choice. Since you have put it into terms of "me" and another person, then I expect that if that person were a loved one, I'd probably choose to die along side them rather than kill them to save myself. But that's not, necessarily, reflective of morality or logic one way or another. And there is a potential morality idea in the killing of another to save yourself rather than dying along side them. My response to the pregnancy situation is more akin to a husband being forced to shoot his child to save his wife or the guy with the gun to her head will kill them both. That's a much tougher choice. Of course, I'd still shoot the guy with the gun...but... presuming that was not a potential option for whatever reason... if you choose not to kill the child, then you are losing your wife too. So it's logical. Moral though? *shrug* Hard to say. As I've said, and will now reiterate, I would try and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Beyond that. I don't know. But in the ectopic pregnancy situation -- if I were to influence my wife to die rather than have it dealt with, would I then be culpable for her death. I mean the child's death is already forgone. It's not a matter of killing them. They have already been kill. So perhaps a more reasonable example would be, my child's been mortally shot beyond saving already, and is also hanging from a rope off a cliff.  My wife's in a precarious situation where she will die as well if I don't cut the rope the child hangs from. Do I cut the rope? The child's already dead either way, but if I don't cut the rope, the child's taking the wife along too. Seems to me that cutting the rope is the moral choice.

 

Anyhow, no analogy would be perfect. But the tubal pregnancy situation stands on its own without analogies. The dying child is going to die no matter what. The mother doesn't have to. 1 death or 2. It's fairly plain.

 

Also, please don't take my point of view (which is easy to throw out in a theoretical sense when not actually facing the choice) as in any way representative of anything by my point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I said.

 

But don't twist it to include scenarios where there are other options. If the ONLY option is the SURE death of both or death of 1, then death of 1 is better.

 

I don't know that it's entirely a decision of morality however. It's a logical choice. Since you have put it into terms of "me" and another person, then I expect that if that person were a loved one, I'd probably choose to die along side them rather than kill them to save myself. But that's not, necessarily, reflective of morality or logic one way or another. And there is a potential morality idea in the killing of another to save yourself rather than dying along side them. My response to the pregnancy situation is more akin to a husband being forced to shoot his child to save his wife or the guy with the gun to her head will kill them both. That's a much tougher choice. Of course, I'd still shoot the guy with the gun...but... presuming that was not a potential option for whatever reason... if you choose not to kill the child, then you are losing your wife too. So it's logical. Moral though? *shrug* Hard to say. As I've said, and will now reiterate, I would try and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Beyond that. I don't know. But in the ectopic pregnancy situation -- if I were to influence my wife to die rather than have it dealt with, would I then be culpable for her death. I mean the child's death is already forgone. It's not a matter of killing them. They have already been kill. So perhaps a more reasonable example would be, my child's been mortally shot beyond saving already, and is also hanging from a rope off a cliff.  My wife's in a precarious situation where she will die as well if I don't cut the rope the child hangs from. Do I cut the rope? The child's already dead either way, but if I don't cut the rope, the child's taking the wife along too. Seems to me that cutting the rope is the moral choice.

 

Anyhow, no analogy would be perfect. But the tubal pregnancy situation stands on its own without analogies. The dying child is going to die no matter what. The mother doesn't have to. 1 death or 2. It's fairly plain.

 

Also, please don't take my point of view (which is easy to throw out in a theoretical sense when not actually facing the choice) as in any way representative of anything by my point of view.

 

Thank you for the clarification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if "accidentally" is the right word, and that's why I haven't used it.

 

That's why we keep saying that killing the baby is not the desired end result of removing a damaged tube, a cancerous uterus, etc. Just as drowsiness in not the desired end result of a narcotic. But I'm not sure I would say they are "accidents."

 

I get that killing the baby is not the desired out come, in fact if there was any other way I am sure that would be the direction to go...  But in big bold letters I was told it was about the INTENT.  Words have meaning and they can mean different things to different people.

 

I said before intent is a messy subject

 

Lets try another example.

 

You know for a fact that your toddler will eat rat poison and die from it.  You also know you have a rat problem in your house.  So you go to the store and buy rat poison.  You set the rat poison out with the INTENT to kill the rats (that is what matters right?) All while knowing that your child will eat the rat poison you set out and die.  This happens some rats and your toddler die.

 

So are you morally ok because you INTENDED only to kill the rats?  Or are you morally in trouble because of what you knew your actions would lead to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the immortal words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Refusing to act -- refusing, for example, to cut a rope to sacrifice one climber and instead watch two climbers fall to their deaths -- is an action. God will judge it as such.

 

Jesus decried as "hypocrites" those Pharisees who sought to justify themselves based on a picky reading of the law of Moses. They fancied they could refuse to care for their parents by declaring their money "corban", or dedicated to the temple, which allowed them not to use it to care for their parents, but curiously enough did not actually obligate them to give it to the temple.

 

The point was not merely that these were bad guys who wanted to twist the letter of the law to their own carnal desires and against God's desires. It was that anyone who thinks he or she can depend on a picky adherence to "law" to save them is woefully mistaken. The law does not save anyone. Jesus saves. The law, at its best and most productive, brings us to God. We stumble when we think the law IS Christ.

 

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Don't believe otherwise.

 

(And yes, I realize that Rush is a bunch of atheists. That's entirely beside the point.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that killing the baby is not the desired out come, in fact if there was any other way I am sure that would be the direction to go...  But in big bold letters I was told it was about the INTENT.  Words have meaning and they can mean different things to different people.

 

I said before intent is a messy subject

 

Lets try another example.

 

You know for a fact that your toddler will eat rat poison and die from it.  You also know you have a rat problem in your house.  So you go to the store and buy rat poison.  You set the rat poison out with the INTENT to kill the rats (that is what matters right?) All while knowing that your child will eat the rat poison you set out and die.  This happens some rats and your toddler die.

 

So are you morally ok because you INTENDED only to kill the rats?  Or are you morally in trouble because of what you knew your actions would lead to?

 

I don't mean to word play. Intended end result and desired end result, as far as I've been using them, have meant the same thing.

 

I think the scenario you posted above is still morally different from putting rat poison in your kid's food so that he'd eat it and die. 

 

But here is where we have to weigh our options to find out if the positive that would come from an act is "worth" the negative side effects of that act. 

 

What positive will come from putting rat poison in the house? You won't get anymore rats? I don't think this is worth the side effect death of your kid. I would argue that anyone who does think this is worth it is probably pretty morally bankrupt as it is.

 

On the other hand, what positive will come from removing a damaged fallopian tube with a baby inside? The mom's life will be spared. I do think this is worth the side effect death of your kid who would have died in a few weeks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting the rope where the man's kid is hanging so that his wife won't also die is different. I too agree that this would not be immoral to do.

 

However (hypothetical scenario here), let's say a man, his child, and his wife were imprisoned and surrounded by bad guys with guns pointing at them. One of those guys gave the man a knife and said "kill your child and we'll spare your wife... otherwise we shoot them both." If he went ahead and killed his child, would that be moral? In my understanding of moral theology, no. He could lunge at one of the bad guys, and he'd get shot, and so would his wife and child. Or he could do nothing and helplessly watch them both die. Either one of those 2 options are more moral, IMO.

 

The difference between the rope/cliff scenario and the knife/bad guys scenario is that on one, your desired end result is not to kill your child. It is simply to cut the rope so that your wife can be pulled back up. On the other one, your desired end result *is* to kill your child.

 

Do you guys see the difference here?

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to word play. Intended end result and desired end result, as far as I've been using them, have meant the same thing.

 

I think the scenario you posted above is still morally different from putting rat poison in your kid's food so that he'd eat it and die. 

 

But here is where we have to weigh our options to find out if the positive that would come from an act is "worth" the negative side effects of that act. 

 

What positive will come from putting rat poison in the house? You won't get anymore rats? I don't think this is worth the side effect death of your kid. I would argue that anyone who does think this is worth it is probably pretty morally bankrupt as it is.

 

On the other hand, what positive will come from removing a damaged fallopian tube with a baby inside? The mom's life will be spared. I do think this is worth the side effect death of your kid who would have died in a few weeks anyway.

 

To answer your question... yes I think it is.  But then I would have answered it that way several layers up

 

So in the end it comes down to a value judgment...  The Life of the innocent vs the Life of the mother, yet when that Value judgment is made in other circumstances it is considered wrong 

 

But lets go back to my example what would you say the intent was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting the rope where the man's kid is hanging so that his wife won't also die is different. I too agree that this would not be immoral to do.

 

However (hypothetical scenario here), let's say a man, his child, and his wife were imprisoned and surrounded by bad guys with guns pointing at them. One of those guys gave the man a knife and said "kill your child and we'll spare your wife... otherwise we shoot them both." If he went ahead and killed his child, would that be moral? In my understanding of moral theology, no. He could lunge at one of the bad guys, and he'd get shot, and so would his wife and child. Or he could do nothing and helplessly watch them both die. Either one of those 2 options are more moral, IMO.

 

The difference between the rope/cliff scenario and the knife/bad guys scenario is that on one, your desired end result is not to kill your child. It is simply to cut the rope so that your wife can be pulled back up. On the other one, your desired end result *is* to kill your child.

 

Do you guys see the difference here?

 

What if the bad guy loaded the pistol with live ammo in front of you, fired off a test round to confirm the gun worked, and then said, "Put this gun barrel to your child's head and pull the trigger, and whatever comes next, I'll free your wife. Otherwise I will kill both." Is it then okay to pull the trigger, because after all, you're not TRYING to kill the child, you're just pulling a trigger, for heaven' sake? That a bullet might tear through your child's skull (or your child plummet to his death, or whatever) because of your action is manifestly not your intent. So it's okay?

 

How is this different in any way from aborting a deadly pregnancy?

 

Note that I'm not emotionally invested in this discussion. I learned what I wanted to know a few pages back, and I'm not trying to offend or pile on -- really. Feel free not to answer. But I really am curious how such a distinction can be maintained in this case. It seems to me a highly Pharisaical type of interpretation, where careful and fine parsing of distinctions between subtle word usage patterns determines whether or not God approves. If so, this is really anathema to the gospel of Christ as preached by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question... yes I think it is.  But then I would have answered it that way several layers up

 

So in the end it comes down to a value judgment...  The Life of the innocent vs the Life of the mother, yet when that Value judgment is made in other circumstances it is considered wrong 

 

 

No. The judgement is NOT "the life of the child vs the life of the mother." All human life is worth the same.

 

The judgement is this: Is the mom's life being spared worth the SIDE EFFECT of removing her damaged fallopian tube and thus causing the death of a child who was already going to die anyway?

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The judgement is NOT "the life of the child vs the life of the mother." All human life is worth the same.

 

The judgement is this: Is the mom's life being spared worth the SIDE EFFECT of removing her damaged fallopian tube and thus causing the death of a child who was already going to die anyway?

 

 

That is a really, really, fine parsing of the situation.  Reducing the informed act of causing a child die, to SIDE EFFECT

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