G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes; indeed, I alluded to it. Then, I alluded to the fact that the condemnation of interception did not include an exception for intent.
- Status
U
underacloud
Guest
Please see here regarding a definition:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31582
To quote:
The case you refer to is one in which the abortion was a means to an end. So the ethics committee argued it was not intended; that their intent was saving the mothers life. But direct abortion is condemned even as a means. The abortion was certainly intended in that case.
Quite simply, DP does not even address what you think it does here. In Catholic moral theology, there is no such thing as an “unintended direct abortion”. It’s an oxymoron.
However you attempt to re-frame this, you cannot avoid the term “intended”, “deliberate”, or “willed”. Abortion is only abortion in the Catholic moral sense when intent is involved. An unintended abortion (medically called a sponteneous abortion) is a miscarriage, and the Church does not condemn women for having miscarriages.
U
underacloud
Guest
The woman taking a neccessary medical treatment that has an unintended secondary effect of reduced fertility is in the same moral position as the woman with an inability to sustain a pregancy. She does not intend any potentially lost pregnancies any more than the other woman does.Apples and oranges. The physical lack of ability to sustain a pregnancy is not at all the same case as the choice to undertake a course of therapy that leads to abortifacient effects.
If there are equally effective treatments available that don’t carry such risk she would choose that course. If not, her circumstances are not intented, any more than the other woman’s.
That’s why it’s a relevant comparison. The Church does not condemn women who have unintended miscarriages.
U
underacloud
Guest
Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I meant. Perhaps my wording was sloppy.underacloud;11788646:
LOL! Really, now… is that what you want to assert? I’ll give you a chance to reconsider that claim…
If you’re still convinced that they were interpreting DP, then please allow me to gently point out to you that both Fr Serpa’s and Michelle’s comments – which you attempt to use to prove your point – precede the publication of Dignitatis Personae! Are you really trying to convince us that their comments interpret a document that hadn’t yet been written? That would be quite the feat…
Fr Serpa addresses your misreading of DP in that he has addressed the distinction between unintended abortions (ie miscarriages) and intended abortions (ie direct abortions). It matters not whether this was before or after the document was published. This issues are the same. Again, it is the important matter of intent. As DP says: “abortion is the deliberate and direct killing…”
Abortion - in the Catholic use of the word - is only discussing abortion that is deliberate, willed, intended. DP includes this definition.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Thank you for this citation. From the page you cited: “Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb.”
Let’s make sure we see this definition clearly: direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception. Interception is the destruction of the product of human conception before the implantation in the womb. Therefore, interception is abortion.
Thanks for helping make that clear.
So is the situation we’re talking about in this thread: the situation in which a woman chooses to engage in sexual intercourse while using the pill as the means to achieve the end of alleviating the symptoms of various physical ailments.
Again, you’re quite right! DP does not frame up the question in terms of intent, in its discussion in paragraph 23!
Hmm… so, I can’t avoid the notion of intent in this context… although that’s precisely what DP does in #23? After all, in that paragraph, the CDF makes no exception for intent or lack thereof: in no unclear terms, it states that “the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral.” I’m not chopping up the quote to make it say something that it’s not attempting to say; rather, I’m providing you the full sentence in which the CDF discusses the morality of interception. Without any reference to intent, there is is: it’s gravely immoral. The use of argumentation along the lines of intent is merely a smokescreen to obfuscate the clear meaning of that sentence.
And now you’re playing games with definitions. The termination of a pregnancy, due to the use of the birth control pill, is a ‘miscarriage’?
Puh-leeze…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough.
And yet, when the subsequent document was published, some 3-4 years after Father’s post, it sufficed to clear up any commentary – such as his – on whether intent matters. Clearly, the CDF stands on the side of “intent is irrelevant; interception is gravely immoral.” At that point, it doesn’t matter what any commentator – as respected as he or she might be – had said previously; in its statement, the CDF has cleared up the Church’s position. Therefore, it does matter that other statements appeared prior to the publication of the document: it matters because the subsequent document renders previous non-magisterial opinion moot.
…and then it deliberately omits the consideration of intent in its proclamation of the morality of interception. Thank you for making that manifestly clear: despite the fact that in DP, the CDF recognizes the notion of intent, its statement about interception does not hinge on intent. Interception is gravely immoral. And, no matter what you have to say about previous commentaries, or non-magisterial opinions, you cannot skirt the fact that the CDF said what it said without giving an exception for intent.
U
underacloud
Guest
Again, please note the clear definition provided: “A direct abortion is one that is intended…”Thank you for this citation. From the page you cited: “Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb.”
Let’s make sure we see this definition clearly: direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception. Interception is the destruction of the product of human conception before the implantation in the womb. Therefore, interception is abortion.
Thanks for helping make that clear.
In Catholic moral theology, there is no such thing as an “unintended direct abortion”.
Also note that your logic (regarding “any destruction of the product of human conception”) would also prohibit the removal of a follopian tube in the case of ectopic pregancy. And I know of no moral theologians who would hold that position.
The use of hormonal treatment is the means. A risk of miscarriage is the unintended secondary effect. And it (miscarriage) is not the means through which the good effect is obtained. It all works under double effect. The only thing remaining is to weigh proportionality (which, as I’ve noted, is difficult).
As I predicted, this is now going round and round. I have offer the opinion of respected apologists on this matter. You disagree, which you are free to do. You read DP to be a prohibition on “unintended direct abortion”, and I can’t seem to help you see that such a notion is an oxymoron. I’ll have to leave it there, and others can judge the merits of our respective arguments.
U
underacloud
Guest
For sake of completeness, since it has not been posted here, the relevant section of Dignitas Personae is here…
I highlight a couple of words to make the important point. These means (interception and contragestation) are immoral when a person intends them: when they “seek” to prevent implantation, or when they “deliberately” kill the human being.
I highlight a couple of words to make the important point. These means (interception and contragestation) are immoral when a person intends them: when they “seek” to prevent implantation, or when they “deliberately” kill the human being.
And I can’t keep going over this now Gorgias. We’ve both offered our interpretations of this document, we are highly unlikely to change each other’s minds, and we can leave it there for anyone who happens to be following this.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… that’s a reasonable objection. However, I think I would respond that the removal of a damaged fallopian tube is the “destruction of a diseased organ”, with the unintended side effect of killing the baby.
This is where we disagree, it seems. I think that your use of the term ‘miscarriage’ here is misleading. I also think that ‘the risk of’ is not properly part of the definition of the unintended secondary effect; rather the unintended secondary effect is the death of the baby. Regardless, though, I think that your use of “risk of miscarriage” still forces us to conclude that a double effect argument cannot be utilized here – the risk of the death of the baby far outweighs the benefit of the alleviation of symptoms.
I’m not seeing the difficulty: there remain other choices (e.g., use of a different type of therapy, marital continence) which do not include the “risk of miscarriage”. Therefore, the proportionality requirement does not seem to be able to be met.
Yep, I agree.
… who offered said opinion prior to the publication of the relevant magisterial document. I’m having a hard time seeing how you can claim that the magisterial opinion must yield to their prior comments.
No: I read DP to be a prohibition on interception, aside from any consideration of intent. If you’re going to restate my case, I would appreciate that you refrain from setting up a straw man.
Fair enough!
Blessings,
G.
T
TX_Proverbs3130
Guest
I strongly echo this. I have a NaPro doctor who actually is treating my issues and is not (and will not) prescribe the Pill to mask the symptoms.
U
underacloud
Guest
And that is why it is important. The unintended side effect of killing the baby is not an abortion…as I’ve been trying to say.
Yes, I think this is the key area we disagree on, and as noted an area I do have some sympathy for your arguments. But I’m not sure why “risk of miscarriage” is an objectionable term. You speak as though the death of a bady is a certainty here, which is is not.
Either way, yes the proportionality is hard to weigh.
You shold note, however, that people put forward the argument that a woman taking the pill is far *less *likely to have miscarriages (through failure to implant) than a woman not on the pill, since unintended miscarriage through failure to implant is such a common occurance anyway.
The “other choices” are a matter for medical experts.
This is begging the question. The magesterial document only negates the opinions I cited if one reads it the way you do. As noted, I completely disagree with your reading. And as noted, I think we should set aside that particular issue rather than repeat ourselves ad nauseum.… who offered said opinion prior to the publication of the relevant magisterial document. I’m having a hard time seeing how you can claim that the magisterial opinion must yield to their prior comments.
U
underacloud
Guest
Just to negate this concern, here is a similar post offered by another apologist well after Dignitas Personae:… who offered said opinion prior to the publication of the relevant magisterial document. I’m having a hard time seeing how you can claim that the magisterial opinion must yield to their prior comments.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=797408
G
Gorgias
Guest
(Notice, though, that DP addresses this point, too: “the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used”. Note that this consideration does not ameliorate the CDF’s opposition to methods of interception.
)Perhaps; yet, this argument is an example of consequentialism: “unintended miscarriage through failure to implant is common anyway, so it’s ok if it happens in this case.” As you know, that’s not valid in the realm of Catholic moral theology.
No, it isn’t. Prior to the publication of Humanae Vitae, some Catholic commentators posited that artificial birth control was licit in the framework of Catholic moral theology. Upon the publication of HV, it became clear that this opinion – which might have previously been considered putatively valid – was, in fact, not supported magisterially. That’s what I’m asserting here: the prior assertion of a personal opinion, subsequently refuted by a magisterial document, does not trump the magisterial statement. That’s not ‘begging the question.’ You might disagree with my take on the document; but you can’t dismiss it out of hand as a logical fallacy.
I can see your point, of course: the document clearly intends to address the notion of so-called ‘emergency contraception’. However, if it meant to assert that intent matters, we would expect that it would say so explicitly. Instead, in its statement about the morality of interception and contragestation, it doesn’t explicitly suggest that intent is relevant. Are you really suggesting that the authors of the document were so short-sighted as to not foresee that, although they meant their statement to be conditional, but expressed it unconditionally anyway, it would be interpreted as unconditional? C’mon, now…
U
underacloud
Guest
Again, only if we accept your reading of the document, that intent is not relevant. I do not agree with your reading. Can we let go of that matter now?(Notice, though, that DP addresses this point, too: “the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used”. Note that this consideration does not ameliorate the CDF’s opposition to methods of interception.
No, it’s pointing out that the hypothetic secondary effect in question may not even be real. You can’t have an increased risk of miscarriage if in fact the risk is reduced.
If your reading is correct, then yes it would contradict those opinions. But that’s only relevant if your reading is correct. Which is why refering to the chronology to support your argument is begging the question.No, it isn’t. Prior to the publication of Humanae Vitae, some Catholic commentators posited that artificial birth control was licit in the framework of Catholic moral theology. Upon the publication of HV, it became clear that this opinion – which might have previously been considered putatively valid – was, in fact, not supported magisterially. That’s what I’m asserting here: the prior assertion of a personal opinion, subsequently refuted by a magisterial document, does not trump the magisterial statement. That’s not ‘begging the question.’ You might disagree with my take on the document; but you can’t dismiss it out of hand as a logical fallacy.
But as you’ll note, I have addressed the chronological concern anyway. If you think the apologists here are continuing to advocate sin, even though (as you think) the magersterium has spoken on the matter via DP, then perhaps you should take it up with them. I wonder if they would agree with your reading of it?
The terms “seeks”, “intends”, and “deliberate” are all included in the section quoted. Yet we read it very differently. Fine. Let’s at this point agree to disagree please.However, if it meant to assert that intent matters, we would expect that it would say so explicitly. Instead, in its statement about the morality of interception and contragestation, it doesn’t explicitly suggest that intent is relevant. Are you really suggesting that the authors of the document were so short-sighted as to not foresee that, although they meant their statement to be conditional, but expressed it unconditionally anyway, it would be interpreted as unconditional? C’mon, now…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Continuing to advocate it? I have no idea. However, I think that your claim that they’re continuing to advocate a position that the magisterium has since refuted – which, in its essence, is your position – is one that is presumptuous, considering that we have no proof of it.
Your position would be stronger, of course, if you could find a respected apologist who has attempted to argue your position since the publication of DP.
U
underacloud
Guest
You must have missed it when I posted it earlier:Continuing to advocate it? I have no idea. However, I think that your claim that they’re continuing to advocate a position that the magisterium has since refuted – which, in its essence, is your position – is one that is presumptuous, considering that we have no proof of it.
Your position would be stronger, of course, if you could find a respected apologist who has attempted to argue your position since the publication of DP.
And I could dig up other posts, but this one is sufficient to make the point. Anyway, it’s a debate we should no longer labour over.
In short, I reject your conclusions and you reject mine. There is little point in repeating ourselves over and over. It seems we completely disagree on how to read the relevant section of DP and no amount of discussion between us will resolve it. So, let’s let it go please?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I did miss this! Thank you!
Please note that, in the case that you cite, the OP explicitly mentions that the use of this particular pill is not expected to result in contraception. That’s a huge difference from the example you’ve been espousing – which is the use of normal contraceptive pills which routinely act in an abortifacient manner.
As you well know, you can’t take the moral implications of one example and apply it to a significantly different circumstance, as you’re attempting to do here.
Perhaps you could; and perhaps you should, since this one fails to make the point that you think it does.
U
underacloud
Guest
Please read again the response by Fr Grondin. He clearly addresses the principles involved when there is a contraceptive secondary effect (whether that is great or small), and goes through the steps in determinging whether double effect applies. It is only step four - proprtionality - in which the specifics of her case are discussed as “a gray area”.I did miss this! Thank you!
Please note that, in the case that you cite, the OP explicitly mentions that the use of this particular pill is not expected to result in contraception. That’s a huge difference from the example you’ve been espousing – which is the use of normal contraceptive pills which routinely act in an abortifacient manner.
As you well know, you can’t take the moral implications of one example and apply it to a significantly different circumstance, as you’re attempting to do here.
He goes on to say: “only you (in consultation with your doctor) can determine the severity of the consequences of not treating your condition with this method”
As I’ve said all along, weighing the proportionality in these situations is difficult. I fear that is the only point of agreement we might be able to reach. You conclude that it will always be impossible to accept the bad effects. I conclude differently.
(PS I’ll also note that a low dose pill may in fact cary a greater risk of acting as an abortifacient than a regular pill, since it does not supress ovulation nearly as well, but still effects the uterine lining. But I’m possibly stepping into medical teritory here, so must be careful.)
Gorgias, I asked a few times that we can just agree to disagree. Let’s do that. Please do not try to drag any further debate out of me on this, because I don’t think either of us has anything new to say here. It’s not that the confidence in my position is waning, just my hunger for the fight.
Best wishes.
- Status