Is contraception immoral...

[CatholicLady]

 

 

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

 

No, I never said that since I didn't intend to hurt her, she didn't get hurt. And likewise, I never said that just because someone did not intend for the baby to die, that he did not die. 

 

I never said it does not change the outcome (friend getting hurt/baby dying). But it does change the morality of the situation.

 

Wouldn't you agree that me telling my friend that her BF is cheating on her so that she will know the truth about her man, is different from my telling my friend this information specifically to tear her down? Don't you think these 2 scenarios are different, morally?

[CatholicLady]

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

 

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. It doesn't really matter what words you choose to use at this point.

 

You may not agree that they are different in morality, but do you see where they are at least 2 different things?

[Bini]

Hmm. I am leaning towards agreeing with Anatess and CatholicLady, in terms of, intent does change morality. When a man goes to war to protect his home and family, and takes lives in the process, it is not murder. I guess that could be debated by some, but I suppose another concept might be if one is attacked, and the victim is able to free themselves by killing their attacker - that's not murder either, it's self defense, by intent. That's my thought process anyway.

[Guest]

That's an easy write-off when someone disagrees with you and/or the ideology of an organization.

No. There's understanding but disagreeing and there's not understanding at all... At least in estradling's case, he doesn't understand it.

[CatholicLady]

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.

 

I'm glad to see that you agree with the 2 different moralities of these 2 separate actions we are discussing. But I must ask... if intent to kill verses no intent to kill is not what separates these 2 actions morally, then what is?

[The Folk Prophet]

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. It doesn't really matter what words you choose to use at this point.

 

The problem with this is it makes it look like saving a woman and the baby dying as a KNOWN result is the same thing as operating on someone and it going wrong and them dying from it.

 

Sure there's a difference between your two scenarios. And I think we'd mostly agree that saving the mother is the right choice in this case. Where we differ is WHY it's the right choice.

 

In the case of the Fallopian tube removal, what we're trying to say is that removing it is INTENTIONAL. And that cannot be gotten around.

 

You can say, hey, I cut off your air to put out this fire. I knew it was going to kill you, and I didn't mean to, but I did it to put out the fire to save someone else. So...sorry.

 

But you still just killed me!  And you made a choice to do so. Sure, the fire would have killed us both anyhow. So you put it out to save one of us. But you still killed me.

 

Yes, morally the right choice. The obvious choice!  Of course. And I would have told you to do the same even had I been given the option. But you still killed me in doing so. Own it! :)

[Guest]

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...

I can't be the wall because it is MY position that you are trying to understand. This is not a matter of I'm wrong you're right. This is a matter of - this is the textbook, I'm the teacher explaining to you the textbook that I'm very well versed in and you saying the textbook is wordplay and I'm telling you it isn't...

But yea, this is exhausting. I studied Catholicism for more years than I studied LDS.... It's not an easy thing to understand especially when you're not learning it in a faith setting.

[Guest]

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...

I can't be the wall because it is MY position that you are trying to understand. This is not a matter of I'm wrong you're right. This is a matter of - this is the textbook, I'm the teacher explaining to you the textbook that I'm very well versed in and you saying the textbook is wordplay and I'm telling you it isn't...

But yea, this is exhausting. I studied Catholicism for more years than I studied LDS.... It's not an easy thing to understand especially when you're not learning it in a spiritual setting.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Duplicate.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm glad to see that you agree with the 2 different moralities of these 2 separate actions we are discussing. But I must ask... if intent to kill verses no intent to kill is not what separates these 2 actions morally, then what is?

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

No. There's understanding but disagreeing and there's not understanding at all... At least in estradling's case, he doesn't understand it.

 

Like I said, easy to say.

[Jane_Doe]

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)

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

Like I said, easy to say.

He doesn't understand what I'm saying. That's plainly evident. It could be I'm terrible at explaining it. But fact remains he's not seeing what I'm trying to explain.

[CatholicLady]

The problem with this is it makes it look like saving a woman and the baby dying as a KNOWN result is the same thing as operating on someone and it going wrong and them dying from it.

 

Sure there's a difference between your two scenarios. And I think we'd mostly agree that saving the mother is the right choice in this case. Where we differ is WHY it's the right choice.

 

In the case of the Fallopian tube removal, what we're trying to say is that removing it is INTENTIONAL. And that cannot be gotten around.

 

You can say, hey, I cut off your air to put out this fire. I knew it was going to kill you, and I didn't mean to, but I did it to put out the fire to save someone else. So...sorry.

 

But you still just killed me!  And you made a choice to do so. Sure, the fire would have killed us both anyhow. So you put it out to save one of us. But you still killed me.

 

Yes, morally the right choice. The obvious choice!  Of course. And I would have told you to do the same even had I been given the option. But you still killed me in doing so. Own it! :)

 

I think it's different because with ectopic pregnancy, you are removing part of your organ that is damaged. Yes, there is a baby inside, but regardless of baby or no baby, it is a damaged organ that needs to be removed. 

 

This is different from literally using someone else's life to protect yourself from something that is going to kill you... which is what you described above. I don't think this would be moral at all.  

[Guest]

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.

Wait, what? I thought we are trying to comprehend Catholic doctrine. If we're trying to debate it's philosophy, I'm not aware of it and I'm going to have to adjust my responses to this setting!

[CatholicLady]

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.

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

So just to be sure we are perfectly clear, if someone held a gun up to your head and said, "kill your daughter and I will let you go, otherwise, you both die", you think it would be moral to go ahead and kill your daughter?

[Guest]

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)

1.5 - intent is the desire. consequences can be intended or unintended. A known inevitable consequence doesn't have to be intended to choose to act towards its fruition.

[The Folk Prophet]

I can't be the wall because it is MY position that you are trying to understand. This is not a matter of I'm wrong you're right. This is a matter of - this is the textbook, I'm the teacher explaining to you the textbook that I'm very well versed in and you saying the textbook is wordplay and I'm telling you it isn't...

But yea, this is exhausting. I studied Catholicism for more years than I studied LDS.... It's not an easy thing to understand especially when you're not learning it in a faith setting.

 

I hate to tell you this anatess, but my position is, very plainly, that a lot of theology is incomprehensible word play. That's not to say I do not respect what Catholics believe. I have a great deal of respect for devout Catholicism. But I'm not going to say something makes sense when it doesn't. And I'm not going to kowtow to an ideology just because you claim it makes sense. If it actually makes sense, then show me.

 

If, legitimately, we simply don't understand, then perhaps it is your failing in explaining it. Logic is logic. Use it and explain. Don't just claim it makes sense because it's commonly accepted and drilled into you by "learning" -- and that we just don't understand. We're moderately intelligent people here.

 

Certainly you must know by now that most discussions on forums such as these end up being semantic word play.

 

And you certainly can be the wall, being the one who has had the ideas taught to you for even longer than you have LDS ideas. I'm not saying you are the only wall. But if we, generally, could admit that we do have walls -- on both sides -- communication would increase at the least.

[CatholicLady]

I hate to tell you this anatess, but my position is, very plainly, that a lot of theology is incomprehensible word play. That's not to say I do not respect what Catholics believe. I have a great deal of respect for devout Catholicism. But I'm not going to say something makes sense when it doesn't. And I'm not going to kowtow to an ideology just because you claim it makes sense. If it actually makes sense, then show me.

 

Folk, did you see my posts about hurting my friend?

 

Did you think what I said makes sense? Because that is the exact same concept being used for our little abortion discussion, so if that made sense to you, then our discussion should too.  :)

[Guest]

I hate to tell you this anatess, but my position is, very plainly, that a lot of theology is incomprehensible word play. That's not to say I do not respect what Catholics believe. I have a great deal of respect for devout Catholicism. But I'm not going to say something makes sense when it doesn't. And I'm not going to kowtow to an ideology just because you claim it makes sense. If it actually makes sense, then show me.

If, legitimately, we simply don't understand, then perhaps it is your failing in explaining it. Logic is logic. Use it and explain. Don't just claim it makes sense because it's commonly accepted and drilled into you by "learning" -- and that we just don't understand. We're moderately intelligent people here.

Certainly you must know by now that most discussions on forums such as these end up being semantic word play.

And you certainly can be the wall, being the one who has had the ideas taught to you for even longer than you have LDS ideas. I'm not saying you are the only wall. But if we, generally, could admit that we do have walls -- on both sides -- communication would increase at the least.

I don't understand what you're saying. For a a Catholic, a deeply held, intensely studied belief that is dismissed as wordplay is very offensive (no, I'm not saying you're being offensive, just that it is disturbing to a Catholic). This is not wordplay. Completely not. And I'm a programmer, I understand logic versus wordplay.

On a personal note:

I received confirmation on my testimony on abortion when I was 12 (long, sob story). This was one of my immovables. My faith is strong on it. So that, when I studied LDS, this was one of those that took me a long time to reconcile. I have encountered this dilemma when studying Protestant faith as some believe abortion is ok on rape/incest. In the end, I realized the impact of Premortal existence of this deeply held belief. So, it did not change my testimony but simply broadened it. Even with Premortal existence on the table, INTENT is still a central component to this decision. If the LDS church would have said you must abort your baby, I would have walked away from the LDS investigation. Rather, it says to approach the Spirit and the Bishop for guidance. This guidance is where I imagined the Spirit to clarify the intent of killing an infant versus the intent of saving the mother with the death of the infant an unintended consequence. And that, until today, my testimony on abortion has not wavered.

Divorce is another one of these things I wrestled with. But that's for another thread.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[CatholicLady]

I don't understand what you're saying. For a a Catholic, a deeply held, intensely studied belief that is dismissed as wordplay is very offensive (no, I'm not saying you're being offensive, just that it is disturbing to a Catholic). This is not wordplay. Completely not. And I'm a programmer, I understand logic versus wordplay.

 

Thank you, my dear :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks for explaining.

 

So just to be sure we are perfectly clear, if someone held a gun up to your head and said, "kill your daughter and I will let you go, otherwise, you both die", you think it would be moral to go ahead and kill your daughter?

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

Because that is the exact same concept being used for our little abortion discussion

 

Well, this is just not true.

[estradling75]

No. There's understanding but disagreeing and there's not understanding at all... At least in estradling's case, he doesn't understand it.

 

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

 

 

No, I never said that since I didn't intend to hurt her, she didn't get hurt. And likewise, I never said that just because someone did not intend for the baby to die, that he did not die. 

 

I never said it does not change the outcome (friend getting hurt/baby dying). But it does change the morality of the situation.

 

Wouldn't you agree that me telling my friend that her BF is cheating on her so that she will know the truth about her man, is different from my telling my friend this information specifically to tear her down? Don't you think these 2 scenarios are different, morally?

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

For a a Catholic, a deeply held, intensely studied belief that is dismissed as wordplay is very offensive (no, I'm not saying you're being offensive, just that it is disturbing to a Catholic). 

 

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.