Is contraception immoral...

[Guest]

I'm Catholic speaking again...

 

(Still trying to understand Catholic thought)

 

I admit my thoughts were drifting from the is-abortion-sinful topic, to more the fate of the babies themselves.  

 

In my very limited understanding of Catholic thought, a person must be baptized sacramentally.  "Person" includes everyone, even babies.  Now I'm being told that "baby" includes even those unborn, or even those which miscarry (>20% of pregnancies).   What is a good-intending-Catholic to do?  And then you add in a large number of pregnancies miscarry <2 weeks in and Mom never knows she's pregnant... just what are you supposed to do?

 

My head is slightly spinning.

 

Sacramental baptism is not the ONLY baptism in Catholic doctrine.

 

There is Baptism by Water and Baptism by Blood.

 

Baptism by Water is your normal baptism...

 

Baptism by Blood is baptism performed by the blood of Christ on the cross.

 

People in the Old Testament, for example, received baptism by blood when Jesus descended to hell to redeem their souls.

 

Similarly, fetuses receive the grace of the beatific vision through this same baptism by blood of the atonement.

 

Okay, LDS to Catholic - missing doctrine is Ordinances for the Dead.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

People in the Old Testament, for example, received baptism by blood when Jesus descended to hell to redeem their souls.

 

This is Roman Catholic doctrine?

[Guest]

I did see your examples they had the same problem mine did.

 

If someone knows what the results are of an action they are about to take; chooses to take that action anyway then they intended for that results of that action to happen.  They simply justify it that something else was more important.

 

If you know that cutting out the tube will cause the infant to die.. then cutting out the tube means you intended at some level for the infant to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice, you wished you had other options, but you made the best choice you can.

 

If I know that stabbing my daughter would kill her.  And I do it to stop a bomb that would kill us both, then at some level I intended my daughter to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice that I wished I never had to make, but I made the best choice I could.

 

I can see intent covering when we don't know what is going to happen...  But when we have knowledge of what is going to happen, we can't the say known consequence wasn't what we intended, the best we can say is we wished it wouldn't have happened.

 

But that's exactly what the Catholics are saying.  You can't INTEND for the baby to die.  You just can't.  That's a sin.  Therefore, when you remove the fallopian tube, you have to be free of intent/desire to kill the fetus.  So, in a way, it doesn't matter if you took the fallopian tube or the baby... if you intended the kill the baby, removing the fallopian tube to do it is still immoral.

[The Folk Prophet]

The ultimate position of the LDS stance is that it is between you and God. That is the primary reason behind why our policy is what it is -- we allow that in certain circumstances that God can direct, by inspiration, that it is the right choice. Beyond that, in principle, I can't see that Catholic or LDS views on it are much different. Most of the debating back and forth on intent strike me as fairly unnecessary.

 

But in the end, we will all stand before God and account for our choices. We won't account, ultimately, to any organization (though LDS do believe that others in the organization will be part of our expressions of accountability), but to God. If God tells me to do something I am justified. Period. I don't care what organization, policy, or principle says otherwise.

 

Note: To be clear, I think we must be quite careful in all instances when choosing to defy policy based on the "God told me so" idea, in that knowing for absolute certain that it was God who actually told us so can be problematic. The devil appearing as an angel of light, mental disorders, etc., coming into potential play. But if we are certain, that is ultimately between us and God and if God did indeed direct us...we are justified.

[estradling75]

But that's exactly what the Catholics are saying.  You can't INTEND for the baby to die.  You just can't.  That's a sin.  Therefore, when you remove the fallopian tube, you have to be free of intent/desire to kill the fetus.  So, in a way, it doesn't matter if you took the fallopian tube or the baby... if you intended the kill the baby, removing the fallopian tube to do it is still immoral.

 

And I would counter with if you have knowledge of what is going to happen, and you do it anyways then you can not claim you did not intend for it to happen.

 

At best you can say its something you wish didn't have to happen, that you wish you could have found another way for

[Vort]

But that's exactly what the Catholics are saying.  You can't INTEND for the baby to die.  You just can't.  That's a sin.  Therefore, when you remove the fallopian tube, you have to be free of intent/desire to kill the fetus.  So, in a way, it doesn't matter if you took the fallopian tube or the baby... if you intended the kill the baby, removing the fallopian tube to do it is still immoral.

 

What if you INTEND to save the woman by moving the ectopic baby, which as a sad result kills the baby? Isn't that okay?

 

It seems at some level this devolves into a game of wording.

[Guest]

This is Roman Catholic doctrine?

 

Yes.

 

Another example - the guy who was crucified with Christ - he got paradise (remember, there's only heaven or hell in Catholic doctrine) - had a baptism by the blood of Christ.

[Guest]

What if you INTEND to save the woman by moving the ectopic baby, which as a sad result kills the baby? Isn't that okay?

 

It seems at some level this devolves into a game of wording.

 

It really isn't just wording.  This is a lesson I continue to apply in LDS.  And it applies similarly to "glancing at another guy is adultery depending on your intent" distinction.

 

INTENT and RESULT are completely separate.  You have to have an INTENDED RESULT to tie the two together.

 

Now, if we do have the technology that you can move the ectopic baby to the uterus, then yes, you move the baby.  Or, if you truly intended to try to move the baby and it resulted in the death of the baby, it is not immoral.

[Guest]

And I would counter with if you have knowledge of what is going to happen, and you do it anyways then you can not claim you did not intend for it to happen.

 

At best you can say its something you wish didn't have to happen, that you wish you could have found another way for

 

Yes you can.  You cannot intend something to happen that you have no control of happening.

 

Guys, c'mon.  Intent is an LDS teaching!  This is not just a Catholic thing we're talking about here.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

It really isn't just wording.  This is a lesson I continue to apply in LDS.  And it applies similarly to "glancing at another guy is adultery depending on your intent" distinction.

 

INTENT and RESULT are completely separate.  You have to have an INTENDED RESULT to tie the two together.

 

Now, if we do have the technology that you can move the ectopic baby to the uterus, then yes, you move the baby.  Or, if you truly intended to try to move the baby and it resulted in the death of the baby, it is not immoral.

 

What if you intend to move the baby, even though you know it has zero chance of survival without divine intervention?

 

Let's put it in a different perspective. Let's say a six-year-old gets pregnant. She's far too tiny to carry the baby to term, or even to viability. She will be harmed or killed by the pregnancy. Does Catholic doctrine allow the six-year-old to abort the baby? Or does she have to have her entire uterus removed as a pretext to make it allowable?

[estradling75]

Yes you can.  You cannot intend something to happen that you have no control of happening.

 

Guys, c'mon.  Intent is an LDS teaching!  This is not just a Catholic thing we're talking about here.

 

But in this case you have control...  You control if the tube gets removed.  That is choice, that is Agency.  The person can decided to do nothing but pray for a miracle.  We do believe in miracles.  That is a choice one can make.  Most likely in that case both the child and mother die.  Most would consider that not much of a choice, but given how many other cases people are counciled to have faith and trust God saying it is not a choice is untrue.

 

Or the person can choose to prematurely end the babies life and preserve the mothers.  That is also a choice.  But to make that choice and then say that I really didn't mean to end the babies life is a flat out deception because the person knows the only way the mother survive (barring miracles) is for the baby to die.

[Guest]

But in this case you have control...  You control if the tube gets removed.  That is choice, that is Agency.  The person can decided to do nothing but pray for a miracle.  We do believe in miracles.  That is a choice one can make.  Most likely in that case both the child and mother die.  Most would consider that not much of a choice, but given how many other cases people are counciled to have faith and trust God saying it is not a choice is untrue.

 

Or the person can choose to prematurely end the babies life and preserve the mothers.  That is also a choice.  But to make that choice and then say that I really didn't mean to end the babies life is a flat out deception because the person knows the only way the mother survive (barring miracles) is for the baby to die.

 

The Catholic's intent is to remove the tube.  That's what the Catholic controlled.  The baby dying is out of the Catholic's control.  There is no deception because the Catholic truly didn't intend for the baby to die.  It is an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.  Now, if you're a Catholic and you truly believed that you intended for the baby to die by removing the fallopian tube and that it is deception to say you did not intend to kill the baby - then you committed the sin of abortion when you removed the fallopian tube.

[Guest]

What if you intend to move the baby, even though you know it has zero chance of survival without divine intervention?

 

Let's put it in a different perspective. Let's say a six-year-old gets pregnant. She's far too tiny to carry the baby to term, or even to viability. She will be harmed or killed by the pregnancy. Does Catholic doctrine allow the six-year-old to abort the baby? Or does she have to have her entire uterus removed as a pretext to make it allowable?

 

You cannot abort the baby, period.  A 6-year old cannot have a baby because she has not hit puberty.

 

But let's say a 26-year-old has a uterus so tiny that it will kill her to carry the baby to term (lots of cases apply to this one not just a tiny uterus) - you try to save both baby and mother.  There are many ways you can do this - carry the baby up to as close a viable term as you can (my neighbor was born when he was only 18 weeks in the womb - he just celebrated his 50th bday last year)... and hope the baby survives when taken out.

[Vort]

What if you intend to move the baby, even though you know it has zero chance of survival without divine intervention?

 

Let's put it in a different perspective. Let's say a six-year-old gets pregnant. She's far too tiny to carry the baby to term, or even to viability. She will be harmed or killed by the pregnancy. Does Catholic doctrine allow the six-year-old to abort the baby? Or does she have to have her entire uterus removed as a pretext to make it allowable?

 

We don't even have to posit an extremely unlikely pregnant six-year-old. If a woman's pregnancy threatens to harm her, does Catholic doctrine demand that she have her entire "defective" uterus removed, with the death of the child simply an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence, rather than just aborting the baby?

[Guest]

We don't even have to posit an extremely unlikely pregnant six-year-old. If a woman's pregnancy threatens to harm her, does Catholic doctrine demand that she have her entire "defective" uterus removed, with the death of the child simply an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence, rather than just aborting the baby?

 

It depends on the circumstance.  But the principle remains - you cannot abort a baby.

[Vort]

You cannot abort the baby, period.  A 6-year old cannot have a baby because she has not hit puberty.

 

As I recall, the youngest (human) mother on record was 5 or 6. But of course, that is not the point.

 

But let's say a 26-year-old has a uterus so tiny that it will kill her to carry the baby to term (lots of cases apply to this one not just a tiny uterus) - you try to save both baby and mother.

 

The point is, what if this is not possible? What if the baby will kill the mother before it (the baby) becomes viable? Though uncommon, this does occasionally happen. Does Catholic doctrine require the complete removal of the "defective" uterus with concomitant unavoidable loss of the baby instead of a straightforward termination of the pregnancy?

 

I'm not passing judgment on Catholic doctrine or practice. I simply want to know if this is actually the Catholic mindset.

[Guest]

 

As I recall, the youngest (human) mother on record was 5 or 6. But of course, that is not the point.

 

 

The point is, what if this is not possible? What if the baby will kill the mother before it (the baby) becomes viable? Though uncommon, this does occasionally happen. Does Catholic doctrine require the complete removal of the "defective" uterus with concomitant unavoidable loss of the baby instead of a straightforward termination of the pregnancy?

 

I'm not passing judgment on Catholic doctrine or practice. I simply want to know if this is actually the Catholic mindset.

 

 

No.  Depending on the circumstance, you save the life of the mother in any means necessary... without intending to abort the baby.

[estradling75]

The Catholic's intent is to remove the tube.  That's what the Catholic controlled.  The baby dying is out of the Catholic's control.  There is no deception because the Catholic truly didn't intend for the baby to die.  It is an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.  Now, if you're a Catholic and you truly believed that you intended for the baby to die by removing the fallopian tube and that it is deception to say you did not intend to kill the baby - then you committed the sin of abortion when you removed the fallopian tube.

 

I call bull...   If you know then you can not say it was UNINTENDED because you knew that was what would happen and you did it anyway.    You can say it was undesirable, you can say it was unwanted,  you can even say it was unfortunate all those would be true but you can not say it was unintended .

 

When you have knowledge then your intent is informed and influenced by that knowledge.

 

So yes your intent matters, but so does what we choose to do when we understand the consequence. 

[CatholicLady]

I did see your examples they had the same problem mine did.

 

If someone knows what the results are of an action they are about to take; chooses to take that action anyway then they intended for that results of that action to happen.  They simply justify it that something else was more important.

 

If you know that cutting out the tube will cause the infant to die.. then cutting out the tube means you intended at some level for the infant to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice, you wished you had other options, but you made the best choice you can.

 

If I know that stabbing my daughter would kill her.  And I do it to stop a bomb that would kill us both, then at some level I intended my daughter to die.  It sucks, its a hard choice that I wished I never had to make, but I made the best choice I could.

 

I can see intent covering when we don't know what is going to happen...  But when we have knowledge of what is going to happen, we can't the say known consequence wasn't what we intended, the best we can say is we wished it wouldn't have happened.

 

When you take a medication for arthritis pain with the side effect of drowsiness, do you take the medication with the intent of getting drowsy? No. You take it to ease your pain, you don't take it to get drowsy. Knowing drowsiness is a definite or possible side effect is not the same as taking it with the intent of getting drowsy. 

 

I honestly don't understand why it's getting so hard to explain the difference between intending for an effect to happen, verses the effect happening as a side effect to a completely different intent. I don't fault you for not agreeing, but I can't understand why you at least don't grasp the concept I am trying to explain. Perhaps I am not making myself clear?

[Vort]

No.  Depending on the circumstance, you save the life of the mother in any means necessary... without intending to abort the baby.

 

So, how do you save the life of a mother whose pregnancy will kill her before the baby reaches viability?

[CatholicLady]

What if you INTEND to save the woman by moving the ectopic baby, which as a sad result kills the baby? Isn't that okay?

 

It seems at some level this devolves into a game of wording.

 

Hm? Depends on what you mean by "moving the baby." Does this just mean removing the damaged fallopian tube? And does the mother/doctors actually *want* the baby to die? 

[estradling75]

When you take a medication for arthritis pain with the side effect of drowsiness, do you take the medication with the intent of getting drowsy? No. You take it to ease your pain, you don't take it to get drowsy. Knowing drowsiness is a definite or possible side effect is not the same as taking it with the intent of getting drowsy. 

 

I honestly don't understand why it's getting so hard to explain the difference between intending for an effect to happen, verses the effect happening as a side effect to a completely different intent. I don't fault you for not agreeing, but I can't understand why you at least don't grasp the concept I am trying to explain. Perhaps I am not making myself clear?

 

If I take medication knowing that that it would make me drowsy... But I take it with the intent manage my pain only...  The fact that I didn't take the medication with the intent to becomes drowsy, does not absolve me if when I become drowsy due to the medicine I cause an accident and cause damage to life, limb, and property. I knew that was a possibly and I chose to do it anyway.

 

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to explain that we will be accountable for what we do, with what we know.

[CatholicLady]

What if you INTEND to save the woman by moving the ectopic baby, which as a sad result kills the baby? Isn't that okay?

 

It seems at some level this devolves into a game of wording.

 

Hm? Depends on what you mean by "moving the baby." Does this just mean removing the damaged fallopian tube? And does the mother/doctors actually *want* the baby to die? 

[CatholicLady]

Just curious, what is everyone's thoughts on this post I made? Lol. I typed up this big long thing to help explain what I meant, and I think I made myself pretty clear. Regardless of whether you agree or not, does this post help you at least understand the concept? What do you think about it?

 

Look at it this way, Jane Doe/Estradling/Vort/anyone else reading this lol....

 

Imagine someone telling you, "I will kill you and your daughter. But if you kill your daughter, I will set you free and you may live. So you have 2 choices... either you and your daughter die, or you kill your daughter and you live." Do you think it would still be moral to kill your daughter?

 

The way I see it is, no, it would not. (Your culpability may be greatlly lessened, but that's God's judgement to make. As far as we are taught, killing your innocent daughter is still objectively immoral). 

 

Abortion is the same thing. Since a human fetus is still a living human being, the woman faced with the above scenario is facing the exact same thing as a pregnant woman who's life is in danger. While her culpability may be lessened for having an abortion, an abortion is still objectively immoral, the same way as killing your innocent daughter is objectively immoral. Because it's the same thing. 

Now imagine this scenario:

There is a bomb strapped to your daughter's chest. The bomb is set to go off and kill you both. The only way to stop the bomb is to plunge a knife through it. But since the bomb is strapped to your daughter's chest, there is the likelyhood that your daughter would die in the process. You decide to go ahead and destroy the bomb by stabbing it with a knife. Your daughter dies. Since your intent was to destroy the bomb, and not to kill your daughter, this scenario is different from the scenario above.

 

Removing a damaged fellopian tube is the same way. You remove the damaged fellopian tube, and your child dies as an unintended consequence. Your intent is not to kill your child.

 

Does this make sense?  

 

[Vort]

Hm? Depends on what you mean by "moving the baby." Does this just mean removing the damaged fallopian tube? And does the mother/doctors actually *want* the baby to die? 

 

No, I posit the idea of leaving the fallopian tube intact while removing the ectopic pregnancy. No one wants the baby to die, but if the fatal obstruction (aka the baby) can be removed without destroying the fallopian tube, is that permissible under Catholic doctrine?

Equivalently, if a woman's pregnancy will kill her before the baby reaches viability, does Catholic doctrine allow her to abort the baby to save her life? If not, does it allow her to have her entire uterus removed, baby and all, to save her life?