Marrying A Prochoice

[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.

[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.