Marrying A Prochoice

[Didacus]

A woman being pro-choice would definately be a deal-breaker for me.
ALthough I don't know if it would be wrong or not. I would definately have questions for a priest that mariies anyone who is openly pro-choice.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='18 September 2009 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1253291540' post='1968631']
why do you say that it'd be permissible if it occurred after the marriage?
it looks like you just stated that it'd be permissible, without saying why, really. not that you didnt state or dont have reasons etc, im just wanting more illumination.
[/quote]
When it comes to whether a marriage is valid, we look at the minds and intentions of the parties on the day they married. It either "takes" or doesn't. Many things can happen later that will not change the validity of the marriage on the day they exchanged vows. A person could later become abusive, or an alcoholic, or addict, or change their views on contraception. As long as they were pro-life on the day of their marriage, it can't be annulled later if they change their minds and become pro-choice. If they are pro-choice the day of the wedding, then it can be annulled later because they were not in the proper mindset to make a valid marriage.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='18 September 2009 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1253292365' post='1968640']
When it comes to whether a marriage is valid, we look at the minds and intentions of the parties on the day they married. It either "takes" or doesn't. Many things can happen later that will not change the validity of the marriage on the day they exchanged vows. A person could later become abusive, or an alcoholic, or addict, or change their views on contraception. As long as they were pro-life on the day of their marriage, it can't be annulled later if they change their minds and become pro-choice. If they are pro-choice the day of the wedding, then it can be annulled later because they were not in the proper mindset to make a valid marriage.
[/quote]

im actually asking why it'd be okay to have relations with that woman, even if the marriage is valid, if she became what i described in the first post. im not asking in terms of such that why it's okay in terms of one marriage valid and the other not etc.
you might be trying to answer the question as in "the marriage is valid, therefore he must do his duty despite her changed views". but even that doesn't appear to me to answer the question of why it'd be permissible, why no 'accomplice' liability isn't imposed given he could just abstain as Loius and others seem to suggest is the proper action. what are the deeper ethical and moral reasons etc.
i suppose it's not totally far fetched 'that's just the way it is- a valid marriage requries duty to be fulfilled no matter the situation pretty much'- it just seems weak to me.

Edited September 18, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

one has an ordinary right to relations with one's spouse, HOWEVER, for grave reasons separations sometimes happen... so long as neither party re-marries then they are not in sin. a woman becoming pro-choice personally would be as much a reason for a separation as a man being abusive to his wife. yes, unilaterally ending conjugal relations is morally permissible, perhaps morally required, if a woman is a potential threat to her future offspring. that's called a separation, and as unpleasant as it is, things like murderous wives sometimes require it.

the purpose of the marital obligation is to say that neither spouse may morally use sex as a bargaining chip in an argument or any such thing.. as often happens in modern marriages with wives withholding sex out of anger and other such nonsensical things. each spouse has a right to conjugal relations and they cannot morally be withheld for arguments and such, but grave and serious reasons can cause separations... and no one should ever have sex with someone who may be a murderous danger to any offspring that sexual intercourse might produce.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know it's not a catholic response but.
when i view the issues of abortion early on, it's a matter of deferring the uncertainty of human personhood to life. in cases of other things, like stem cells or maybe rape etc, there's counterweighing formbidable concerns, given it's all a matter of practical weighing.
i suppose if i use those are premises, one could argue, that if the change occurred after marriage, then the balancing principle could be the conjugal duty, and the notion that the husband didnt intend the act, and the wife isn't prone to abortion, just keeps intercourse etc at least as arguable.
but even with my premises, this argument is still iffy, as most are, that regard balancing something as sacred as human life.

if you dont take the uncertainty thing, though, even more still, then. i dont see how it'd be permissible to say they are required to engage, at least in the after marriage scenario.

Edited September 18, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='18 September 2009 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1253282938' post='1968562']
They are one flesh, after all, so if he has any knowledge at all that she considers abortion an option, then he remains at least partially culpable.
[/quote]

Where does the woman's choice come into play on this? Why does culpability transfer because there was an option for sin?

Take this out of the abortion context for a second...

God created man, the tree that man ate from, the serpent that tempted man and had knowledge that man would sin, yet we don't say God is at least partially culpable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

rk, would you say the man would be culpable at least partially.. if the women said she had a higher degree of liklihood of an abortion, after they've had many kids in marriage and are getting up in age?
what if she said "if i have a baby i am for sure going to abort" given the up in age etc scenario after marrage?

would you say he's not culpable, given he's not the one that made the decision, and is at least a step removed from it?
would you say he is culpable? and if so, what is the distinguishing factor? is it because the liklihood has increased of the abortion? is it then a matter of degree, in this situation?

Edited September 18, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='18 September 2009 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1253317017' post='1968890']
rk, would you say the man would be culpable at least partially.. if the women said she had a higher degree of liklihood of an abortion, after they've had many kids in marriage and are getting up in age?
what if she said "if i have a baby i am for sure going to abort" given the up in age etc scenario after marrage?

would you say he's not culpable, given he's not the one that made the decision, and is at least a step removed from it?
would you say he is culpable? and if so, what is the distinguishing factor? is it because the liklihood has increased of the abortion? is it then a matter of degree, in this situation?
[/quote]

ha a lot of questions...

I do think its a matter of knowledge and degree. In your original hypo the wife has a natural inclination (I forget the word you used) towards having the baby but reserves the option. I say this shows a chance, but a low chance. The threshold seems to be a varying issue - maybe a more likely than not standard.

[Aloysius]

if he knows that she might abort the child, he sins by putting a child into harms way. it's like giving a Jewish baby to Hitler... sure, Hitler's culpable if he kills the baby, but you're culpable for giving it to him.

the marital obligation is null and void if the woman is a murderous aborter! that should be obvious, IMHO.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='rkwright' date='18 September 2009 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1253318504' post='1968895']
ha a lot of questions...

I do think its a matter of knowledge and degree. In your original hypo the wife has a natural inclination (I forget the word you used) towards having the baby but reserves the option. I say this shows a chance, but a low chance. The threshold seems to be a varying issue - maybe a more likely than not standard.
[/quote]
would you hand a baby to anyone who said "I'm naturally inclined to keep this baby alive, but I reserve the right to kill it"?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 September 2009 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1253318607' post='1968897']
would you hand a baby to anyone who said "I'm naturally inclined to keep this baby alive, but I reserve the right to kill it"?
[/quote]

First, I don't dispute that marrying a person with this outlook is unwise and probably grounds to annulment.

Second I think your example is a strawman because it gives the option of handing the baby over (potentially bad) with doing nothing (completely neutral) , thus it always makes sense to hold on to the baby.

Better would be: creation of a baby but the potential for its death.

[Aloysius]

creation of a baby inside of a woman who might kill it=immoral IMO.

I don't see how this is not a parallel... having sex with pro-abortion wife=morally bad; not having sex with woman who might kill your baby=morally good. handing baby over to woman who might kill it= morally bad. keeping baby away from woman who might kill it= morally good.

and it's not "potentially" bad, it is bad. regardless of whether she ends up aborting the child (or in the other case killing it), it is a morally bad action to put a child into harms way. in both scenarios.

perhaps a better analogy would be: would you adopt a baby and bring it into your home if your wife said "I'm inclined to keep this baby alive, but I might kill it"?... the question is to adopt or not to adopt, to have sex or not to have sex; and when the would-be-mother is a would-be-murderer, the answer to both is an emphatic "no".

it's an utterly different issue than simply creating a baby that might die; because honestly, every act of procreation has that risk... things happen, miscarriages happen, car accidents happen, et cetera. it's creating a baby inside of a hostile mother, inside of someone with the potential for murder, who might murder that child. I simply cannot see how it can be considered moral at all to engage in conjugal relations with someone you know might kill a baby produced by those conjugal relations, even if you're already married. the marital obligation does not exist if the woman in the relationship might kill a baby created by the intercourse.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 September 2009 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1253320662' post='1968912']
creation of a baby inside of a woman who might kill it=immoral IMO.

I don't see how this is not a parallel... having sex with pro-abortion wife=morally bad; not having sex with woman who might kill your baby=morally good. handing baby over to woman who might kill it= morally bad. keeping baby away from woman who might kill it= morally good.

and it's not "potentially" bad, it is bad. regardless of whether she ends up aborting the child (or in the other case killing it), it is a morally bad action to put a child into harms way. in both scenarios.

perhaps a better analogy would be: would you adopt a baby and bring it into your home if your wife said "I'm inclined to keep this baby alive, but I might kill it"?... the question is to adopt or not to adopt, to have sex or not to have sex; and when the would-be-mother is a would-be-murderer, the answer to both is an emphatic "no".

it's an utterly different issue than simply creating a baby that might die; because honestly, every act of procreation has that risk... things happen, miscarriages happen, car accidents happen, et cetera. it's creating a baby inside of a hostile mother, inside of someone with the potential for murder, who might murder that child. I simply cannot see how it can be considered moral at all to engage in conjugal relations with someone you know might kill a baby produced by those conjugal relations, even if you're already married. the marital obligation does not exist if the woman in the relationship might kill a baby created by the intercourse.
[/quote]

"Every act of procreation has that risk" - so then at what point does procreation become acceptable? Or the question posed by dairy is at what point does the risk of procreation become acceptable? This is exactly what I'm saying.

"Someone with the potential for murder" - isn't this everyone? Where do you draw the line?

[Aloysius]

every act of procreation has the risk that accidental death could occur, that was my point. not that every woman has the potential to murder her own child; because while it is possible that a woman might go crazy later and do it, that's an unforeseeable action, whereas when one has the opinion that murdering is an acceptable option at the point of the concepting conjugal act and you know about that opinion at that time, it's FORESEEABLE that she might murder her child.

where do I draw the line? I draw the line at whether they say they might abort or whether they say they would never. I suppose some woman who always said she was pro-life might change her mind in the midst of a pregnancy, though I think that to be highly unlikely. the point I'm making is that her attitude to abortion should be a deal-breaker for conjugal relations even if she's you're wife if she says she might abort. that's a simple enough line to draw, isn't it? if she says she reserves the right to abort, then don't make a child with her.

[rkwright]

I draw the line further. I tend to see the creation of life as greater than the destruction of it.