Marrying A Prochoice

[Aloysius]

that doesn't make sense to me. it is creating life in the womb of a murderous person! creating a baby IN harm's way. creating life inside someone who may murder it! there is no difference between doing that and simply handing over a baby to a woman who might murder it.

it would be selfish and irresponsible to do this, what purpose would it serve? to create life under the power of a murderer?

there is a difference between creating life when there's a chance, even a high probability, that it might die of natural causes. that is perfectly moral and good, of course the creation of life is greater than its ending. though I think there may be a question in terms of having conjugal relations with a woman whose doctors have given her like 3 months to live or something--then it might come back to the issue of being selfish and irresponsible to create a child when it will likely die. but even that is a more acceptable thing that to create life inside of a woman who might kill it herself. the point of the matter is: any woman who would reserve the right to kill your child is not the woman you should entrust your offspring to.

[rkwright]

I think you're assuming facts that dairy did not give in order to bolster your argument. The woman in question is not a murderous person - no murder has been committed.

[Aloysius]

those who reserve the right to murder I consider to be "murderous people"

again, this is why the analogy of handing a baby to a woman who says "I'm inclined to keep the baby alive, but I reserve the right to kill the baby" is at the very least poignant to the discussion... a woman who says that is a murderous woman, IMO. reserving the right to murder makes you a murderous person. reserving the right to abort makes you a murderous person.

now, way earlier on I made the distinction of one who is personally pro-choice vs. one who is only pro-choice in the abstract. if the woman says "I would never abort, but I think women should have the legal right to do so", then it's possible to procreate with such a woman. if she reserves the personal right that she might do it herself, then you cannot responsibly or morally entrust her with your seed, with your children.

[rkwright]

Your wording puts too much emphasis on only portion of dairy's hypo - it wrong asserts the position that "reserving the right" or merely the possibility of abortion equates to abortion itself.
There is a chance of life here, and the way I read dairy's problem it is over 50%, possibly over 75%, or even 85%.

God took a chance on humanity when He knew that the outcome would be sin, death, pain, suffering, even to the death of His own Son. Yet the creation of the world along with its redemption outweighed the destruction.

[Aloysius]

to me, it would be irresponsible to entrust one's offspring to anyone who admits it as a possibility in any degree. I don't care if they consider it a 1% possibility that they might kill their child thinking it morally acceptable. that's a deal breaker to marriage IMO. 1% is a deal breaker, because it's 1% MURDEROUS INTENT.

as to the possibility of creating life being such a good that it outweighs the risk? I disagree. It's not analogous at all to God entrusting humans with life; He subjected that to free will and does not interfere in free will thus causing the risk. But we have no obligation to submit our offspring to the free will of anyone who might potentially harm or kill them. whenever someone holds the choice to kill their baby as something that is morally permissible to them, one should never make a baby with them. that's where the line ought to be drawn, because otherwise you have an arbitrary line and are willing to put children under the power of someone who considers killing those children morally permissible.

there is no difference of degree here to me; there is a difference of kind, but not degree; in that one who is pro-choice in the abstract (political/legal) sense but pro-life personally is a different kind than one who is pro-choice personally. the degree to which one is pro-choice personally doesn't matter though. it's not a percentage game of "the baby has over a 50% chance of being kept by its mother so it's okay to go for it"... if the mother considers abortion permissible for herself to do, then to have a child with her is to put a baby into harms way... again, it is the same as giving a woman who might kill the baby (even if the might is only a small percentage) a baby. I have yet to see why that is a straw-man... in conceiving a child inside of a woman, you have effectively given her a baby.

[Aloysius]

I would like to add that obviously any specific situation ought to be dealt with with pastoral prudence, and any man finding himself in this situation should certainly seek the advice of a trusted pastor. This is all my opinion as an armchair moral theologamateur. I have a tendency to simply state my opinions straight up, but obviously they're always just my opinions and are certainly open to debate.

::feels self conscious looking at all the -1s::

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 September 2009 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1253335763' post='1969041']
I would like to add that obviously any specific situation ought to be dealt with with pastoral prudence. This is all my opinion as an armchair moral theologamateur. I have a tendency to simply state my opinions straight up, but obviously they're always just my opinions and are certainly open to debate.

::feels self conscious looking at all the -1s::
[/quote]
Don't feel bad! The anonymity makes some people feel like they can do whatever they want, I think.
It'll all even out in the end. At least that's what I personally believe.

[jeffpugh]

I personally don't give out -1s unless the person is Budge-like. That is, uncharitable. I'm more of a positive reinforcer

[dairygirl4u2c]

rk, what if the couple had only a one percent chance of having kids, given some sort of natural pregnancy limitation.... but the woman's intention to have an abortion was high (not certain, maybe 75% if you want to quantify it) if they in fact did conceive?
would you say, that the intention isn't what really matters,,, but in fact the liklihood that an abortion could occur is what really matters?
just throwin lots of questions out there, yes.

[Aloysius]

the percentage argument seems to me like an ends-oriented approach, ie if it turns out OK it's a good action so it's a good action if it's got a good likelihood of turning out OK, whereas we ought to look at the means themselves, and the means of conceiving a child within someone who might possibly kill it is what is bad, regardless of what the probability is that it will turn out ok in the end anyway.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='19 September 2009 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1253341572' post='1969073']
rk, what if the couple had only a one percent chance of having kids, given some sort of natural pregnancy limitation.... but the woman's intention to have an abortion was high (not certain, maybe 75% if you want to quantify it) if they in fact did conceive?
would you say, that the intention isn't what really matters,,, but in fact the liklihood that an abortion could occur is what really matters?
just throwin lots of questions out there, yes.
[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' date='19 September 2009 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1253344453' post='1969082']
the percentage argument seems to me like an ends-oriented approach, ie if it turns out OK it's a good action so it's a good action if it's got a good likelihood of turning out OK, whereas we ought to look at the means themselves, and the means of conceiving a child within someone who might possibly kill it is what is bad, regardless of what the probability is that it will turn out ok in the end anyway.
[/quote]

A few points...

First I don't like the point system, no one should be given negative points in this debate IMO because everyone has been charitable. Al I gave you my point to even it out because I think thats ridiculous - it takes credibility away from the argument by placing a popular vote on it.

Second, on dairy's revised hypo. 75% percent of death is way to high. The percent thing is a little abstract and not meant to be taken too literally. I posted earlier where I would say "more likely than not" might be the standard. I actually agree with Al's earlier post where he says its a matter of foreseeability, its just I can "tolerate" or "allow" a greater chance without transferring culpability. For example I don't think anyone can be 100% sure that the wife (or say anyone in the family) won't kill the baby - or that the baby won't turn out like a serial killer or something. Anything is possible right? But most of us say that chance is so remote that I'm willing to bring new life into the world knowing that the world is full of sin and destruction.

Third, to dairy's other question on intentions - me personally, I believe that sin is 100% in the intention. Maybe we can start another debate about acts and intentions being sinful. I realize I am a little against mainstream thought on that, but thats another topic...

Fourth, to Al's post. You are correct that a utilitarian viewpoint would be immoral. I don't think you can really say the ends justify the means because no one knows the ends until after it has been completed. If the man is culpable he is culpable at the point of having sex. He, IMO, would be culpable of intending to have a child which he knew was more than likely to be killed. Thats how I would phrase it.

Last, I agree with Al on the arm chair theologian. I'm just guessing at this. Moreover, I would strongly caution anyone who is thinking of marrying someone who reserves the right to kill the baby. This person is obviously not 100% open to life and this is an area which needs to be sorted out in pre-marriage prep. I just went through marriage prep 6 months ago, and we certainly went over it (no problems with an orthodox Catholic wife) though

[StColette]

[quote name='rkwright' date='19 September 2009 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1253372839' post='1969147']

First I don't like the point system, no one should be given negative points in this debate IMO because everyone has been charitable. Al I gave you my point to even it out because I think thats ridiculous - it takes credibility away from the argument by placing a popular vote on it.

[/quote]

I added points to those who had negative ratings on their posts because I saw nothing contrary to Church teaching in them nor was there any lack of charity.

Phatmassers should keep in mind that Moral Theology is a very difficult area in Theology to traverse. I don't know of a single phatmasser who has made moral theology their life's study, save maybe some of the Priests and I believe CatherineM. It's easy to make a mistake when discussing moral theology, especially when given hypothetical situations and when you haven't studied this area of Theology thoroughly. It would be best to refrain from taking points away unless it's absolutely clear that it's against Church teaching or is uncharitable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='19 September 2009 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1253341572' post='1969073']
rk, what if the couple had only a one percent chance of having kids, given some sort of natural pregnancy limitation.... but the woman's intention to have an abortion was high (not certain, maybe 75% if you want to quantify it) if they in fact did conceive?
would you say, that the intention isn't what really matters,,, but in fact the liklihood that an abortion could occur is what really matters?
just throwin lots of questions out there, yes.
[/quote]

i think my point was somewhat missed, cause it was not clear. so to really high light the point. what if the women in the original hypo had a 2 percent chance of aborting the child, but the women in the above quoted hypo had a 1 percent chance?

ie, 'i intend to abort if pregnant at a probability of 5%, but my probability of pregnancy is greater than another woman's such that my likelihood of abortion is ultimately 2%'
v.
'i intend to abort at a probability of 75%, but my probabiilty of pregnancy is smaller than that of another woman, such that my liklihood of abortion is ultimately 1%'

the only real difference is in the woman's intention in both cases - the liklihood thing favors the woman who would in fact be more prone to an abortion as a matter of intention given the probability is lower that an abortion would occur.

Edited September 19, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Third, to dairy's other question on intentions - me personally, I believe that sin is 100% in the intention. Maybe we can start another debate about acts and intentions being sinful. I realize I am a little against mainstream thought on that, but thats another topic...[/quote]

i am in agreement that the sin is in the intention. eg, even if you never do X sin, if you intend it, then you've still sinned.

but it seems like an odd situation, as my last post high lighted better- that the male cannot have intercourse with the woman who as a matter of probability would be less likely to have an abortion, even if her intentions are higher that she'd want one.

plus, as far as 'sin is in the intention', that seems like it'd surely be applied to the woman with the higher intention to abortion, sure. we can all agree to that. but, what about the man? 'sin is in the intention' doesn't lend itself so easily to him just because the woman's sin was in her intention. for the man, it's a matter of foreseeabiity, as you guys argued, it seems- and with the second hypo, the foreseeability is lower.

if the ultimate measuring device for the man then is foreseeability.. are you ready to state that it's okay to have intercourse with a woman who has a high intention of abortion, albeit in the right circumstances?

Edited September 19, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i suppose you could argue 'the woman might have a lower probability of abortion, who has a higher intetion if she does get pregnant... but *if pregnant* the ill intending woman's probability is higher, and for that reason she must be avoided. that is, the natural limitations are what they are- they are morally neutral.... but, opennness to life at the point of human discretion in the matter is too low for the ill intending woman."
but then you'd have to say that it's not the foreseeability that's the end all be all issue then, that in some sitiuations it's okay to have intercourse with a woman who is more likely to have an abortion than another woman, and not permissible to have relations with that other woman despite the lower liklihood of abortion.

what's your position, and are these arguments what they come down to, or are there other one's im missing?
im mostly curious with rk since he at least accepts that it's not absolutely unacceptable to seriously entertain the possibility abortion might happen.

Edited September 19, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c