Marrying A Prochoice

[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

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='19 September 2009 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1253381918' post='1969209']
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.
[/quote]

I think I would answer just like said...

The natural limitations are neutral. If sin lies in the intention then you would ask "Is a man morally culpable when he intends to impregnate his wife when it is more likely than not that she will carry the baby to term, even if there is a chance of abortion" My answer would be no - I think Al's would yes.

I don't think that natural limitations are really a factor. Similar to the arguments against contraceptives - say is a man morally culpable for using contraceptive means when his wife cannot become pregnant due to natural limitations? my answer would be yes to that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems you'd have to conclude as i said, above:
"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."

that's a tough cookie to swallow.
but, i suppose, both women's probability of abortion is in the zone of permissible generally. a few percentages or even double digit percentage isn't what the point is, arguably, but the principle of the matter.
it's just weird to say it's okay to accept a higher possibility of abortion, due merely to some principles. cause in fact (getting past principles), abortion is still more likley to occur. i mean, maybe i shouldn't say 'in fact', cause it's still a principled hesitency, being hesitant about being privy to a higher liklihood of abortion.

[Aloysius]

I think foreseeability is drawn right at the point where any woman "reserves the right" to abort. that's when it's foreseeable that they might abort. unless she says "i would never abort", it's foreseeable and therefore one should not procreate with her. it's all about her attitude towards the idea of aborting her own child at the start; if she has a known attitude in which she thinks it morally OK to abort, I would not believe it correct to engage in intercourse with her. to me, it doesn't matter how likely she is or isn't to actually abort, it's the fact that she holds it as something that she could see herself doing; it's about where she is in her mindset towards it which determines whether it's foreseeable that she'd abort the child.

I would propose that: a man who engaged in intercourse with a woman who held abortion as an option would be wrong even if the woman didn't abort the child, and a man who engaged in intercourse with a woman who held abortion to not be an option for her but then she ended up getting the abortion would not have been wrong. all the man can do is take her word for it, which is why I think it important to have a clear line that her attitude towards her getting an abortion is what matters, if she considers abortion an option I do not consider procreating with her to be an option.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 September 2009 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1253290242' post='1968612']
a woman could marry a man who was pro-choice, "agreeing to disagree" as it were, because the woman will simply refuse to ever allow her child to be killed.
[/quote]

I would think (based on my limited knowledge) that both man and woman must be faithful to their marriage vows to be joined in a sacramental marriage. Therefore, if he is not open to life, there is no valid marriage. Obviously a diocesan tribunal would have the final say on that matter...

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='18 September 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1253314276' post='1968874']
Where does the woman's choice come into play on this? Why does culpability transfer because there was an option for sin? [/quote]

Both are culpable. It goes without saying that a woman is responsible for her own abortion, but especially in marriage, her husband is not withheld free of fault if (as I understand the original question) he knows that his wife considers abortion an option for family planning.

[quote name='rkwright' date='18 September 2009 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1253314276' post='1968874']
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.
[/quote]

God also granted Adam and Eve the gift of free will.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what about a woman who insists in limited situations in abortion for herself, as a possibility... say 'severe fetal abnormality'?
the likelihood is very very remote. yet, the woman would retain the option. it's a lot to ask a man to say he wont have relations due to this far out scenario. not that it's not the right thing to ask. especially if the woman acquired the belief after the marriage.
and to make it more realistic, not that a simple change in mind isn't unrealistic after marriage... say the couple have a severely deformed baby. then, the woman decides to abort it, and wouldn't have undid the abortion if she could have. most people dont like to think about what they'd do in that scenario. obviously here, the woman made a decision and is unswayed that it was the wrong one. after that incident, then, the man couldn't engage in relations with her anymore, even if it was a fluke and they are otherwhise healthy and normal adults and child prone, cause the woman might in a far off chance have another fetal abnormality.
it's just a lot to ask, right or wrong i leave for debate, is all im sayin.

personally, id probably defer to all that 'it's ultimately a question of uncertainty of life early on anyway' and/or proportionalitysm (as contrasted to deontonism, 'ends dont justify the means' type stuff). cause only those with hardfast worldviews could come to results that seem so counterintuitive as not having sex with your wife cause she might abort in a remote chance a severe fetal aborrmall baby. or even, 'it's okay to have sex with woman who has double digit more chance of having an abortion than another woman, as long as she's not intent on having an abortion at a very high percentage'
but i respect these other opposing views, for their respect for truth if anything, so that's why i ask what you guys think.

Edited September 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

catholic moral ethics does break down 'accomplice liability', so to speak, into 'remote cooperation' and 'material cooperation' etc. and that it's often a matter of degree whether one can be held accountable, 'how remote, how proximate, was your part in it?'. i think what is being argued by both sides, is arguable within the catholic context, though.
it's just interesting to ponder the gray (as i see it being gray) even within catholic ethical thought, even as it's not a 'relative' type of religion (or at least, not relative in certain senses...).

Edited September 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='19 September 2009 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1253379450' post='1969195']
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?
[/quote]

This matter is being made far more complicated than it is in reality:

1) Sex is reserved for marriage.
2) Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman who vow to each other and God to, among other things, be fully open to the gift of new life.
3) A woman who considers abortion an option in family planning is [i]not[/i] open to the gift of new life.
4) That means there is no valid marriage (see #2).
5) Which means there is no sex (see #1).

Assuming the couple is Catholic, this line of reasoning looks flawless to me, but if there is a hole in it I'd be curious to hear what it might be.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='20 September 2009 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1253469948' post='1969712']
what about a woman who insists in limited situations in abortion for herself, as a possibility... say 'severe fetal abnormality'?
the likelihood is very very remote. yet, the woman would retain the option. it's a lot to ask a man to say he wont have relations due to this far out scenario. not that it's not the right thing to ask. especially if the woman acquired the belief after the marriage.
[/quote]

Let's rephrase this with a different choice of words:

What about a woman who insists that she is within her right to kill her unborn child if it is abnormal? Regardless of how likely a scenario this is, she is betting against the 100% odds that a fetus is a living human being. Indeed, it is much to expect her husband to abstain from sexual relations with his wife, who is willing to send God's gift of new life to the grave, regardless of the fact that she rejected her vow of openness to life after they were married, thus proving unfaithful to an oath she swore before God.

Yet, look at a crucifix and tell me that a man not called to die for his spouse.

The truth is this man will commit adultery against God [i]and[/i] his wife by having sex in an unfaithful marriage. Is it better to abstain and hope for redemption, or to have sex and contribute to his wife's damnation? Which is the sacrificial, loving act? Which is truly open to life?

The truth is plain to see. It is our messed up hearts and attachment to earthly pleasures that make this a difficult matter.

Edited September 20, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='20 September 2009 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1253475573' post='1969794']
This matter is being made far more complicated than it is in reality:

1) Sex is reserved for marriage.
2) Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman who vow to each other and God to, among other things, be fully open to the gift of new life.
3) A woman who considers abortion an option in family planning is [i]not[/i] open to the gift of new life.
4) That means there is no valid marriage (see #2).
5) Which means there is no sex (see #1).

Assuming the couple is Catholic, this line of reasoning looks flawless to me, but if there is a hole in it I'd be curious to hear what it might be.
[/quote]

I'm nearly positive that couples in an invalid marriage or a marriage which is later annulled by the Church are not guilty of sins against chastity (ie pre-marital sex). I'm almost positive that children conceived in a marriage that is annulled are not considered illegitimate either.

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='20 September 2009 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1253463170' post='1969647']
God also granted Adam and Eve the gift of free will.
[/quote]

Yes. And he created the man and wife with free will also... that doesn't solve the problem I raised.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 September 2009 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1253476599' post='1969808']
I'm nearly positive that couples in an invalid marriage or a marriage which is later annulled by the Church are not guilty of sins against chastity (ie pre-marital sex). I'm almost positive that children conceived in a marriage that is annulled are not considered illegitimate either.
[/quote]
I am quite certain that you are correct. CatherineM has gone over that a few times on the Q&A board and in other threads.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 September 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1253476599' post='1969808']
I'm nearly positive that couples in an invalid marriage or a marriage which is later annulled by the Church are not guilty of sins against chastity (ie pre-marital sex). I'm almost positive that children conceived in a marriage that is annulled are not considered illegitimate either.
[/quote]

That's beside the point. In dairygirl's original question, she is saying that the husband knows that his wife considers abortion an option in their family planning. This is more personal than the many pro-choicers who never choose abortion for themselves. His wife as rejected their wedding vows. Why would they engage in the physical act of renewing their vows? It would be a lie and a husband must not be complicit with a lie. He needs to take up his cross. In this case, that means abstaining from sexual intimacy.

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='20 September 2009 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1253476978' post='1969813']
That's beside the point. In dairygirl's original question, she is saying that the husband knows that his wife considers abortion an option in their family planning. This is more personal than the many pro-choicers who never choose abortion for themselves. His wife as rejected their wedding vows. Why would they engage in the physical act of renewing their vows? It would be a lie and a husband must not be complicit with a lie. He needs to take up his cross. In this case, that means abstaining from sexual intimacy.
[/quote]

That was in response to your syllogism that they shouldn't be having sex because they aren't really married.

IMO if the husband believes that the wife will more likely than not carry the baby to term, then he believes she is living up to her vows and there is no "lie" as you put it.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 September 2009 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1253477577' post='1969823']
That was in response to your syllogism that they shouldn't be having sex because they aren't really married.

IMO if the husband believes that the wife will more likely than not carry the baby to term, then he believes she is living up to her vows and there is no "lie" as you put it.
[/quote]

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.

Edited September 20, 2009 by LouisvilleFan