Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Lets be very clear it not just a damaged fallopian tube. Its a fallopian tube with a viable egg implanted in it causing the damage. You can not remove the tube without killing the baby. As much as you might wish otherwise... So your answer is really yes it is ok.. as long as you do enough hand waving and mental gymnastics to convince yourself that is not what you are really doing If you're simply hand waving and doing mental gymnastics to excuse your intention of aborting the baby, then you have sinned. If you can't see the difference, then it's great that you're LDS and not Catholic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Bottom line is this guys... you don't have to agree that intent to kill and intent to treat an ailment (that may result in death), are 2 morally different things. You don't have to agree with that. No one here is trying to convince you to agree with that concept. :) At this point all I'm trying to do is help you understand it. Can we at least say we all understand, even if some of us may not agree? Yes? Yessss? Bueller? Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Bottom line is this guys... you don't have to agree that intent to kill and intent to treat an ailment (that may result in death), are 2 morally different things. You don't have to agree with that. No one here is trying to convince you to agree with that concept. :) At this point all I'm trying to do is help you understand it. Can we at least say we all understand, even if some of us may not agree? Yes? Yessss? Bueller? Lol. No, they don't understand. But that's okay. They're not Catholic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Lets be very clear it not just a damaged fallopian tube. Its a fallopian tube with a viable egg implanted in it causing the damage. You can not remove the tube without killing the baby. As much as you might wish otherwise... So your answer is really yes it is ok.. as long as you do enough hand waving and mental gymnastics to convince yourself that is not what you are really doing The last line was demeaning, so I don't think I'm going to respond to you here. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) As a more general question (specific leaving abortion morality behind). It seems when reaching sticky situation, LDS tend to lean towards "pray about it" and steer away from specific guidelines. Catholics, on the other hand, do seem to have specific guidelines? Is that a correct observation? Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 No, they don't understand. But that's okay. They're not Catholic. Touche, Ana. Thanks for helping me explain my side. :) God bless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 If you're simply hand waving and doing mental gymnastics to excuse your intention of aborting the baby, then you have sinned. If you can't see the difference, then it's great that you're LDS and not Catholic. Funny it seems to me acknowledging that the baby has to be killed so that the mother can live, is facing the facts and dealing with the truth of the matter. So that one can then make the hard honest choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 But there's a baby in it! And by removing the tube you are insuring the baby dies. Yes, killing the baby is not your goal, but you know it's going to happen. 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. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) As a more general question (specific leaving abortion morality behind). As a general observation, when reaching sticky situation, LDS tend to lean towards "pray about it" and steer away from specific guidelines. Catholics, on the other hand, do seem to have specific guidelines? Is that a correct observation. The Catholic go-to answer is to bring the matter up to your priest/bishop - who will guide you in your prayers. The Catholic Church has a ~2,000 year history. So, more than likely, such things have been encountered by others before and clarified into minute detail by previous church leadership's appeal to the magisterium. Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Killing an innocent human being is worse than death. On this point, at least, we are in full agreement. Any disagreement stems from the understanding of what it means to kill an innocent human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I can.... How can you reasonably expect to tell someone... "I knew what I did would hurt you... And I did it anyways because I judged something else to be more important and that is what I wanted." and expect that that they wouldn't really be hurt after all. After all they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions I told my best friend that her boyfriend was cheating on her. I knew it would hurt her, but I didn't tell her so that it would hurt her, I told her so that she would know the truth about the man she was dating. That is not wrong. If I had told her specifically to hurt her, then yes, that would be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I also honestly don't understand why you can't separate the intent from the result/consequence. Because with pre-knowledge they are inseparable. If you know an action has a result then your intent in said action MUST include said result. Denying that it does is logically invalid. It's like a world leader claiming, "We didn't intend all the innocents in the hospital to die when we bombed it. We only intended to kill the terrorist hiding out there. Therefore, we wash our hands of the innocent who died therein as a result of our actions." The claim we make is simply that if you know an action leads to a result then you are culpable for said action. Period. Therefore, the question is not entirely about intent. It is about justification. Either way, clearly, both LDS and Catholic views justify abortion at some level. Catholicism, apparently, wraps it up in intent. LDS-ism includes intent, but ultimately understands that intent is complex and messy, and therefore reliance upon the guidance of revelation becomes the guiding factor. You can intend "good" all you want in the LDS view and still willfully disobey God, upon which you will be accountable, regardless of your so-called good will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 As a more general question (specific leaving abortion morality behind). It seems when reaching sticky situation, LDS tend to lean towards "pray about it" and steer away from specific guidelines. Catholics, on the other hand, do seem to have specific guidelines? Is that a correct observation? Depends. Some sticky situations still have a black and white morality to them. Some don't, and need to be prayed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) No, they don't understand. That's an easy write-off when someone disagrees with you and/or the ideology of an organization. Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Funny it seems to me acknowledging that the baby has to be killed so that the mother can live, is facing the facts and dealing with the truth of the matter. So that one can then make the hard honest choices. The difference here - and this is a major difference - is you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die. Big difference. And that's what I'm saying - if you don't see that difference, then we're talking to the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 That's an easy write-off when someone disagrees with you and/or the ideology of an organization. To be fair, some of us are trying to comprehend the Catholic doctrine and mindset, while others are debating it as philosophically unsubstantiable. These discussions appear similar, but are in reality two entirely different (though related) things. CatholicLady 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Because with pre-knowledge they are inseparable. If you know an action has a result then your intent in said action MUST include said result. Denying that it does is logically invalid. It's like a world leader claiming, "We didn't intend all the innocents in the hospital to die when we bombed it. We only intended to kill the terrorist hiding out there. Therefore, we wash our hands of the innocent who died therein as a result of our actions." The claim we make is simply that if you know an action leads to a result then you are culpable for said action. Period. Therefore, the question is not entirely about intent. It is about justification. Either way, clearly, both LDS and Catholic views justify abortion at some level. Catholicism, apparently, wraps it up in intent. LDS-ism includes intent, but ultimately understands that intent is complex and messy, and therefore reliance upon the guidance of revelation becomes the guiding factor. You can intend "good" all you want in the LDS view and still willfully disobey God, upon which you will be accountable, regardless of your so-called good will.Folk, how do you feel about my post #235? As for your last paragraph, no. Catholicism never justifies abortion. An unintended death of an unborn baby is not abortion, just as an unintended death of a born person is not murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) The difference here - and this is a major difference - is you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die. Big difference. And that's what I'm saying - if you don't see that difference, then we're talking to the wall. Once more: who's the wall here? Pretty arrogant to assume only your side of the understanding is valid. From my perspective this -- you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die -- is the word play we're objecting too. If you cannot see that it's wordplay, then we're talking to the wall... Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I told my best friend that her boyfriend was cheating on her. I knew it would hurt her, but I didn't tell her so that it would hurt her, I told her so that she would know the truth about the man she was dating. That is not wrong. If I had told her specifically to hurt her, then yes, that would be wrong. I thought you weren't going to respond to me any more? (For what it worth is I would understand...) I am not auguring if it wrong or right. I am argue the idea you because did not intend to hurt your friend t herefore you did not hurt her... That is clearly not true in your example, nor is is true that when you remove a damage tube you don't kill. Your intent does not change the facts of what happened. Nor does it absolve you of fall out of the action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Folk, how do you feel about my post #235? I feel fine about it. Not sure what you're asking here. As for your last paragraph, no. Catholicism never justifies abortion. An unintended death of an unborn baby is not abortion, just as an unintended death of a born person is not murder. Fair enough. "Abortion" is defined by Catholocism very specifically. So -- semantics. I should have said that both justify the death of an unborn child via medical process at some level...or something akin instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Once more: who's the wall here? Pretty arrogant to assume only your side of the understanding is valid. From my perspective this -- you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die -- it the word play we're objecting too. If you cannot see that it's wordplay, then we're talking to the wall... It's not word play. :) Being killed by another person who purposely sought you out to kill you, and dying as a result of medical treatment where death was not the goal, are 2 different things with 2 different moralities. You may not agree that they are different in morality, but do you see where they are at least 2 different things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 The difference here - and this is a major difference - is you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die. Big difference. And that's what I'm saying - if you don't see that difference, then we're talking to the wall. And there is the word play again... The baby will die. You can take action to save the mothers life that will cause the baby to die sooner... Generally speaking this is call killing them. But you can split the hairs if you want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicLady Posted January 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I thought you weren't going to respond to me any more? (For what it worth is I would understand...) Just not to the rude post. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 It's not word play. :) Being killed by another person who purposely sought you out to kill you, and dying as a result of medical treatment where death was not the goal, are 2 different things with 2 different moralities. You may not agree that they are different in morality, but do you see where they are at least 2 different things? Actually, I do agree that they are different morally. What I disagree on is that "intent" makes the difference in morality, or that the intent is not part of the equation when death is the sure outcome. But what I'm calling word play is "the baby has to be killed versus the baby has to die". Unquestionably there is a moral difference in the choices...but either way the baby is being killed -- as are all who die. Something killed them. In this case, it is the medical procedure. If not for the medical procedure, then the medical issue/complication kills. If not for the medical problem, something else...at the last, old age. But something is killing when someone dies. And trying to define death without "killing" is word play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.