Is contraception immoral...

[CatholicLady]

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.

 

You have to answer my question in post #318 first.

 

I need my posts answered so that I can know if you understand me or not.

[CatholicLady]

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

 

Give me your thoughts and please answer my question on post #318. :)

[CatholicLady]

dup

Edited January 30, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Vort]

Responding to #318, as requested.

 

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.

 

Yet it is a positive action that immediately results in the child's death -- no different from abortion, that I can see.

 

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.

 

Um...okay. I don't agree, but we all have our opinions. I'm more interested in understanding the Catholic justification for how things are considered.

 

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?

 

No, because the distinction is meaningless. In neither case is your desired end result to kill your child. In both cases, your desired end result is to save somebody. And in both cases, that desired end result requires actions that lead to the sacrifice of your child.

 

Okey-dokey, there's my response to #318.

[estradling75]

Give me your thoughts and please answer my question on post #318. :)

 

I answered your question in post #322   

 

Do you my thoughts on the the situation discussed in #318 or an expansion on why I think it is a parsing?

[CatholicLady]

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.

 

To address this little portion separately...

I get that you guys don't understand and/or don't agree. But I honestly see no reason to have said this to me. :-/  

[CatholicLady]

 

Responding to #318, as requested.

 

 

Yet it is a positive action that immediately results in the child's death -- no different from abortion, that I can see.

 

 

Um...okay. I don't agree, but we all have our opinions. I'm more interested in understanding the Catholic justification for how things are considered.

 

 

No, because the distinction is meaningless. In neither case is your desired end result to kill your child. In both cases, your desired end result is to save somebody. And in both cases, that desired end result requires actions that lead to the sacrifice of your child.

 

Okey-dokey, there's my response to #318.

 

Thank you. :)

 

So just to clear it up... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

[CatholicLady]

I answered your question in post #322   

 

Do you my thoughts on the the situation discussed in #318 or an expansion on why I think it is a parsing?

 

So just to confirm... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

[Vort]

Thank you. :)

 

So just to clear it up... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

 

I think they amount to the same thing. I do not believe that God would condemn me for one but justify me for the other. I think they are equivalent. Whether I could actually bring myself to slit my child's throat rather than allowing him to plummet to a grisly death is another matter.

[estradling75]

So just to confirm... you think both these acts (cutting the rope/stabbing the kid) are the same in morality?

 

 

What?   Post 318 is you talking about rat poison and I answered your questions.

 

Sound like you meant post 321?    Either that or we don't see the same numbering for some reason?

[pam]

Test

[Vort]

Test

 

What is the average density of Europa?

[CatholicLady]

I think they amount to the same thing. I do not believe that God would condemn me for one but justify me for the other. I think they are equivalent. Whether I could actually bring myself to slit my child's throat rather than allowing him to plummet to a grisly death is another matter.

 

They *do* amount to the same thing. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. I am not trying to speculate on God's judgement either, that wasn't the point.

 

Either way, it sounds like you think they are morally equivalent acts. Thank you for answering. I will take a look at your post. :) 

[rpframe]

What is the average density of Europa?

105 persons per km^2?

[CatholicLady]

Estradling, that's weird. #318 is the long post below. But I'm going off of Folk's analogy right here:

 

  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.

 

 

Post 318:

 

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?

[pam]

What is the average density of Europa?

Haha  We're doing some testing on the lag time.  :)

[CatholicLady]

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?

 

I have already seen now that we will not agree that these acts are different. But yes, I do think that taking a weapon and shooting someone in the face with the intent of killing them is different from the rope/cliff scenario that Folk presented.

 

In the rope scenario, your kid is already shot and already going to die. He is shot, hanging off a cliff from a rope that is also tied around your wife who is on the edge of the cliff. If you do nothing, your wife will get pulled down the cliff with him. If you cut the rope, your kid falls to his death, but your wife stays up.

 

I don't think this is a perfect analogy of an ectopic pregnancy, but in both cases you are removing the threat without directly targeting and killing the kid.

[jerome1232]

The analogy instead of the idea is being attacked here.

Regardless of the flawed analogy, the idea is that the life of the kid is forfeit regardless, the only courses of action is that you must kill the already doomed kid to save another life, or allow both to die. The life could be but doesn't have to be your own.

[Vort]

I have already seen now that we will not agree that these acts are different. But yes, I do think that taking a weapon and shooting someone in the face with the intent of killing them is different from the rope/cliff scenario that Folk presented.

 

In the rope scenario, your kid is already shot and already going to die. He is shot, hanging off a cliff from a rope that is also tied around your wife who is on the edge of the cliff. If you do nothing, your wife will get pulled down the cliff with him. If you cut the rope, your kid falls to his death, but your wife stays up.

 

I don't think this is a perfect analogy of an ectopic pregnancy, but in both cases you are removing the threat without directly targeting and killing the kid.

Mmmmm...no, not unless I'm misunderstanding you. I thought you said that cutting the rope was fundamentally different from actually killing the child, because you weren't killing him, you were merely cutting a rope. The child falling to his death is only an unfortunate side effect of cutting the rope, not the intended outcome.

 

The situation with the gun is identical. You are not killing the child, you are merely pulling the trigger. The child getting his brains blown out is only an unfortunate side effect of pulling the trigger, not the intended outcome.

[CatholicLady]

Look at it this way, Vort, the 2 scenarios (rope/gun) are different because with the rope, your intended end result is still not for your kid to die (plus, your kid is already dying). There is a rope tied around your wife that is pulling her down. You need to cut the rope to free her. If you go to the cliff's edge and point a gun at your kid, and kill him, it wouldn't solve what you are trying to do. 

 

So yes, I still think that shooting your kid in order to kill him so that the bad guy won't kill your wife, is different from cutting a rope tied around your wife where your already dying kid is hanging from.

 

And again, I will say, this is still not a perfect analogy, and honestly I still don't know for sure if even the rope thing would be moral. But what I'm trying to do here is show you the difference between the 2 scenarios.

[CatholicLady]

duplicate again! i swear there is something wrong with this computer... lol. Sorry guys.

Edited January 30, 2015 by CatholicLady

[CatholicLady]

Mmmmm...no, not unless I'm misunderstanding you. I thought you said that cutting the rope was fundamentally different from actually killing the child, because you weren't killing him, you were merely cutting a rope. The child falling to his death is only an unfortunate side effect of cutting the rope, not the intended outcome.

 

The situation with the gun is identical. You are not killing the child, you are merely pulling the trigger. The child getting his brains blown out is only an unfortunate side effect of pulling the trigger, not the intended outcome.

 

But you are pulling the trigger specifically for the kid to die! :)

 

However, you are not cutting the rope specifically for the kid to die. If your intent in the rope scenario was for your kid to die, then you could just stand at the edge of the cliff and shoot him. There. He'd be dead. But that wouldn't get you to your goal, which is to free your wife of the cord that is pulling her down, not to kill your kid.

[Vort]

At this point, what I understand is that you (and, I assume, many other Catholics) perceive a moral difference between these two situations, and that said moral difference hinges on two things: (1) What is supposed to be the intent of the action, and (2) whether you actually perform the proximal action to the death, or whether there is at least one conceptual level of separation between your action and the cause of death, the allowing you to retain a plausible (in the minds of some) deniability of directly causing the death.

 

Please let me know if I'm mistaken in any of the above.

 

For myself, I see little or no moral difference between the described actions. The intent in all cases is salvation, not death, and whether or not you perform the proximal action to kill the innocent person is irrelevant, since you are knowingly and willingly doing the actions that you know will result in his death. To suppose otherwise smacks to me of Pharisaical parsing, as if God is the Great Celestial Lawyer and our salvation depends on how cleverly we can read (or manipulate) his law.

 

I hope this is not interpreted as a personal criticism of you, because it is not intended as such. In fact, I am not thinking of it even as a condemnation of Catholicism. I think it is a faulty philosophy, probably no worse than any other false philosophy and frankly less damaging than many, but which under the wrong circumstances could lead to tragic choices.

[Vort]

But you are pulling the trigger specifically for the kid to die! :)

 

Oh, no, I am not. I am pulling the trigger specifically so the gunman will go away. I don't know for 100% sure my child will die. Maybe the gun will misfire. Maybe the bullet will miss vital parts of his brain. Maybe the bullet will enter a portal singularity before penetrating my child's skull.

 

The deal was that if I don't pull the trigger, my wife and child die, but if I do, he won't kill anyone. That's the deal. I am manifestly NOT pulling the trigger in order to kill my child; I'm doing it to get the gunman to go away.

 

So now that you understand the situation clearly, what is your answer and rationale?

[SpiritDragon]

Just chiming in with my two bits worth on the topic of side effects. Side effects as a term is simply a term refering to consequences other than the specifically targeted consequence. Either way they are consequences, known factors that happen in a sequence of events which can be desirable or undesirable outside of the primary target.

 

So looking at the ectopic pregnancy issue and intent - I think the main point here is that most of us see the death of the baby as a consequence of operating on tubes the same as it is a consequence of other methods of abortion. I also think nobody is disagreeing that the intent (primary target) is to save mom not to kill baby(consequence unfortunately required to save mom), however the catholic perspective appears to be linking intent to actions such as cutting a rope and pulling a trigger (either way the consequence is serious harm and/or death) as inherently having different intent, when again both times the intent is to save a life and not take one. The crux of the matter seems to be whether or not the intent is to save mom or a bad choice of birth control.

Edited January 31, 2015 by SpiritDragon