Marrying A Prochoice

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='20 September 2009 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1253477876' post='1969825']
Well, allow me a bit of hyperbole. The point is the God calls a man and woman in sexual intimacy to be fully open to the gift of human life. The matter is simple: Is the wife in this scenario fully open to human life?

The answer is, emphatically, no. Tell me why her husband, if he's a faithful Catholic, has any business enjoying sexual intimacy with his wife who has declared her rejection of her marriage vow to be open to life? So what if she will "more likely than not" carry their child to term? If he feels like gambling, he should take his money to a poker table.
[/quote]

If she has flaws in her moral reasoning that is her fault and her burden to bear. But if he honestly believes, that despite these flaws, she is more likely than not to carry the child to term then I don't see how culpability can be transferred.

"Play God" for a moment (or just a very merciful judge if you're not comfortable with that). The husband comes before you and says "I was trying to create life, I was trying to fulfill my end of being pro-creative. I knew my wife wasn't 100% pro-life, but I never thought she would actually kill the baby. If I believed she actually would have killed the baby I wouldn't put it in harms way. But I didn't - and thats why I conceived a child with her." I cannot place moral blame on this man.

I think my position is well stated in this thread and I'm not seeing any "new arguments" on this, rehashing it over and over is unnecessary. Peace.

[dairygirl4u2c]

just an observation.
i know im even more (to use artificial terminology for simplicity's sake) on the 'left' on this issue than everyone and rk (maybe?), but even rk's position seems arbitrary on the point of 'more likely than not'. there's nothing magical about the 50% mark. (i mean, in a sense it's not arbitrary... it is a commonly accepted standard) at least let it be 'clear and convincing' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt', if you're into legal terminology. beyond a reasonable doubt, is reasonable, for this situation, cause it's a higher standard, and a little more qualitative as is the nature of these scenarios. i don't think 'more likely than not' is very reasonable, in matters of human life.
i mean, even in my system, which arguably is more 'left' ish, i would likely only say the man is morally permitted, cause the probability is so low (among other things, but that's a threshhold issue). even in my system, i'd say 'more likely than not' is way too soft on the guy.
i hope rk isn't succombing to clinging to the notions he's most familiar and/or comfortable with, ie, 'more likely than not', than better notions.

girl 'more likely than not, i'd have the baby..' (read, how wishy washy such a standard is), guy 'good enough for me...', just seems cheap.

Edited September 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='20 September 2009 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1253481905' post='1969887']
just an observation.
i know im even more (to use artificial terminology for simplicity's sake) on the 'left' on this issue than everyone and rk (maybe?), but even rk's position seems arbitrary on the point of 'more likely than not'. there's nothing magical about the 50% mark. (i mean, in a sense it's not arbitrary... it is a commonly accepted standard) at least let it be 'clear and convincing' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt', if you're into legal terminology. beyond a reasonable doubt, is reasonable, for this situation, cause it's a higher standard, and a little more qualitative as is the nature of these scenarios. i don't think 'more likely than not' is very reasonable, in matters of human life.
i mean, even in my system, which arguably is more 'left' ish, i would likely only say the man is morally permitted, cause the probability is so low (among other things, but that's a threshhold issue). even in my system, i'd say 'more likely than not' is way too soft on the guy.
i hope rk isn't succombing to clinging to the notions he's most familiar and/or comfortable with, ie, 'more likely than not', than better notions.

girl 'more likely than not, i'd have the baby..' (read, how wishy washy such a standard is), guy 'good enough for me...', just seems cheap.
[/quote]

Actually this might be a better idea. I am comfortable with "more likely than not" because that is the standard of the field I work in. But maybe since this is a matter of life and death and culpability "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be better.

I think you make a good point that my standard may be too low, but I wouldn't set it as high as Al's.

BTW I've never thought more likely than not was a wishy washy standard. I think "clear and convincing" is pretty wishy washy, and beyond a reasonable doubt often leads it to beyond any doubt at all.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 September 2009 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1253478582' post='1969837']
If she has flaws in her moral reasoning that is her fault and her burden to bear. But if he honestly believes, that despite these flaws, she is more likely than not to carry the child to term then I don't see how culpability can be transferred.

"Play God" for a moment (or just a very merciful judge if you're not comfortable with that). The husband comes before you and says "I was trying to create life, I was trying to fulfill my end of being pro-creative. I knew my wife wasn't 100% pro-life, but I never thought she would actually kill the baby. If I believed she actually would have killed the baby I wouldn't put it in harms way. But I didn't - and thats why I conceived a child with her." I cannot place moral blame on this man.

I think my position is well stated in this thread and I'm not seeing any "new arguments" on this, rehashing it over and over is unnecessary. Peace.
[/quote]

The problem is I don't see a connection between your reasoning and the marriage vows. I'm looking at the the objective criteria: marriage vows and a couple's faithfulness to them. Marriage is not a partnership where each spouse is only responsible for fulfilling their end of an agreement. There are no two "ends" to speak of: the two become one flesh. Going before God, every husband is accountable for the holiness of his wife. If he's just looking out for himself, saying, "I was trying to fulfill my end of being pro-creative," he's repeating Adam's old line: "The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

That's why I say he is culpable. That isn't to say God wouldn't extend mercy: there cannot be mercy given without sin to require it.

A similar question is this: Are husbands free of guilt if their wives are on contraception?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='20 September 2009 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1253481905' post='1969887']
girl 'more likely than not, i'd have the baby..' (read, how wishy washy such a standard is), guy 'good enough for me...', just seems cheap.
[/quote]

It is. A couple is either faithful to the vows or they are not. You can't be "mostly faithful." There's no such thing.

Of course, virtually every couple breaks their vows in one way or another. The point (as I see it) is to be aware of where we have fallen so we can admit our fault in order to obtain grace and mercy. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -1 John 1:8

Edited September 21, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

So... I guess nobody has anything to add? Nothing to poke holes in my logic? I laid it all out there...

Is the "debate" on Sola Scripture really that interesting?

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='22 September 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1253652819' post='1971143']
So... I guess nobody has anything to add? Nothing to poke holes in my logic? I laid it all out there...

Is the "debate" on Sola Scripture really that interesting?
[/quote]

I don't buy that merely because the husband has sex with his wife he is now responsible for her future actions. This takes the two become one flesh to a whole new level. I know of no support of this idea to really be persuaded by it. You use Adam as your example, but remember Adam ate of the apple too. He committed the sin and is personally just as guilty as Eve.

Similarly I don't know of any support for the idea that the failure of one spouse to live up to their marriage vows transfers culpability to the other.

Your example of contraception is completely different. Contraception is used before (or) during sex. The husband knows, without a doubt, right at that point and can make a certain decision right at that point.

Al's argument is different as well. Al is saying that the man is personally responsible because the man personally put a child at risk. I can buy this, and I do believe this, but I just place the risk at different acceptable level. I cannot believe that the wife's failure to live up to her marriage vows in and of itself transfers culpability to the husband when they have sex.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, sometimes i like to jump on in a 'even if i were catholic...', but i just didn't feel up for it.
and it was more interesting to see catholics hashing it out. and i thought the end seemed upon this thread.
but yeah the contraceptive point by L was pretty weak. there's a 100% certainty there in sin by the wife, it could definitely be distinguished.

i do think the point "it's like God gave us the opportunity to sin" by rk is kind of weak. it seems like there should be a better analogy than that. it just doesn't seem like we can compare ourselves to God. i don't really have a very good reason for this, it just seems like there's something not quite right about that analogy.
-God gave made us an open palate, and gave us free will, and the opportunity to sin. he didn't know specifically that we might sin in that we haven't said that it was a possibility, as does the man and wife in this situation.
God does know as a matter of omnipotency, though. that omnipotency is different than our explicity knowledge o n the matter, but, i wouldn't argue if someone said it wasn't.
-or it's like "im not going to try to fix human suffering, etc, cause God is who made it that way." or "im not going to try not to sin, cause God made me that way" etc. it's kind of like that, it seems. maybe im saying? 'if God can do it, then so can I". obviously there's much to 'fault' God for, as many atheists would agree, and many theists would admit are difficult teachings. but, that doesn't mean that we are to be like that. 'do as i say not as i do'
-i dunno, i can't quite put my finger on it. i think there's more to distinguish, but again im just not sure what.

Edited September 22, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='22 September 2009 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1253652819' post='1971143']
So... I guess nobody has anything to add? Nothing to poke holes in my logic? I laid it all out there...

Is the "debate" on Sola Scripture really that interesting?
[/quote]

Yep

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='22 September 2009 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1253657697' post='1971185']
i mean, sometimes i like to jump on in a 'even if i were catholic...', but i just didn't feel up for it.
and it was more interesting to see catholics hashing it out. and i thought the end seemed upon this thread.
but yeah the contraceptive point by L was pretty weak. there's a 100% certainty there in sin by the wife, it could definitely be distinguished.

i do think the point "it's like God gave us the opportunity to sin" by rk is kind of weak. it seems like there should be a better analogy than that. it just doesn't seem like we can compare ourselves to God. i don't really have a very good reason for this, it just seems like there's something not quite right about that analogy.
-God gave made us an open palate, and gave us free will, and the opportunity to sin. he didn't know specifically that we might sin in that we haven't said that it was a possibility, as does the man and wife in this situation.
God does know as a matter of omnipotency, though. that omnipotency is different than our explicity knowledge o n the matter, but, i wouldn't argue if someone said it wasn't.
-or it's like "im not going to try to fix human suffering, etc, cause God is who made it that way." or "im not going to try not to sin, cause God made me that way" etc. it's kind of like that, it seems. maybe im saying? 'if God can do it, then so can I". obviously there's much to 'fault' God for, as many atheists would agree, and many theists would admit are difficult teachings. but, that doesn't mean that we are to be like that. 'do as i say not as i do'
-i dunno, i can't quite put my finger on it. i think there's more to distinguish, but again im just not sure what.
[/quote]

and a part of it's that, the ways of God are unknown to us. we speculate with theology etc. yet something that can be nebulous is being used to substantiate a concrete argument. it seems flaky. thought i guess that God made us with the potential for evil etc and knew we'd commit evil, is pretty par for any theology discussion. still though.
that's just part of it, again. again, something seems amiss using that argument about God making us with the potential for evil, but not sure what exactly.

[Aloysius]

I'll point out that I've not been arguing that the husband is then responsible for the wife's actions... the wife who aborts commits the sin of murder (God alone knows what her culpability is, but the sin itself is there)

but the sin in my opinion is to place a child into a hostile environment when one conceives a child with a woman who holds the option of killing that child as a moral possibility. one can sin by putting a child into an unsafe situation, even if it is really those who cause the unsafe situation and act out the harm to the child who are sinning in that sense. the shared culpability doesn't come from the marriage vows, it comes from the fact that you've placed a child into an unsafe situation... placed a child under the absolute power of one who might kill it.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='23 September 2009 - 05:24 AM' timestamp='1253701488' post='1971394']
I'll point out that I've not been arguing that the husband is then responsible for the wife's actions... the wife who aborts commits the sin of murder (God alone knows what her culpability is, but the sin itself is there)

but the sin in my opinion is to place a child into a hostile environment when one conceives a child with a woman who holds the option of killing that child as a moral possibility. one can sin by putting a child into an unsafe situation, even if it is really those who cause the unsafe situation and act out the harm to the child who are sinning in that sense. the shared culpability doesn't come from the marriage vows, it comes from the fact that you've placed a child into an unsafe situation... placed a child under the absolute power of one who might kill it.
[/quote]

What do you think of louisville's argument that the Husband sins because he has sex with his wife who he knows is not living up to their marriage vows? Regardless of the placing a child at risk. Just wondering...

[dairygirl4u2c]

it could be that my "he has a hand in the sin and sins indirectly, 'remote cooperation or not' 'material cooperation or not etc' '' " and al's "he put the baby in harm's way and is directly at fault" and L's "they're violating their marriage vows", could be different ways of saying the same thing. different ways of approaching it. for me, when the husband is found to be wrong, he's found to be wrong for all those reasons, not just the one i mentioned. of course, with the qualification that i don't take Al and L's principles as far as they do, for all circumstances.

i could see Al and L agreeing with each other's arguments, saying both are ways of finding fault. different theories, if you will. but that's for Al and L to sort out.

Edited September 24, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

hmm