Moral question regarding abortion/young girls

[Blue_Horizon]

Clearly it does not forbid the act which saw that intruder die, if that act was as Your scenario suggests. The negative precepts - properly understood - are absolute and know no exceptions.

That’s really helpful…not Rau.

I’ll file it away with the usual surprising apriori truths :
“No unicorns are naturally without a horn”,
“No immovable object can ever be displaced” and
“No brothers, amazingly, are without a common parent.”

The evil you reference is the physical evil manifest in the dead intruder.

Yes, along with that 1cm length of fallopian tube that just happens to contain a human embryo .

Readers should note that the PODE is not some additional moral “rule”, that establishes exceptions to otherwise clear rules, but rather is merely a tool to aid understanding or analysis.

At least we are agreed on the still debated medium (as opposed to fine) points of the PODE.

Which all comes back to the not so simple identification of the “object” of the direct intent of a moral act as opposed to acceptably chosen evil physical consequences (or even co-sequences as in co- effects) which are only indirectly intended. I have recently discovered a theological argument that we should really call such indirect intent “praeter-intention”. I think that is very insightful.
I have always accepted that in lethal self defence we do actually intend to kill at some point. But that intent is not as fully free as the greater intent to protect. Of course the external physical deeds may well be exactly the same…yet moral object and moral consequences will be objectively different in identical cases judged murder or self defence.
I feel a similar and familiar contraception use example coming on Rau .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Evil need not be done to stop the intruder, even when what is done causes his death.

Do you really think this is normal English?

In lethal self defence physical evil is done, is chosen, is intended and is foreseen at some point in many cases … and all this can be morally acceptable.

So I really don’t understand your above statement.

 

[Rau]

That’s really helpful…

I thought so. If anyone identifies theological error in what I wrote, I’m sure it will be posted, rather than a commentary on unicorns.

Of course the external physical deeds may well be exactly the same…yet moral object and moral consequences will be objectively different in identical cases judged murder or self defence.

A revelation…not!

 

[Rau]

Do you really think this is normal English?

Normal or not…the commandment has to be understood.

In lethal self defence physical evil is done, is chosen, is intended and is foreseen at some point in many cases … and all this can be morally acceptable.

So I really don’t understand your above statement.

Sure. “Evil” needs to be understood in context - which in my statement above was as “moral evil”. Just as we understand “the ends do not justify the means” to reject moral evil as means. I may break down your door (physical evil) to pull u from the burning building. I may even hit the aggressor pointing the guns at you.

 

[tjaugustine]

So now we are essentially assessing the intent? (not attack, just trying to understand the point in the discussion, asit is getting quite complicated)

If such is acase,I am afraid we are too close to relativistic ethics.

 

[Rau]

So now we are essentially assessing the intent? (not attack, just trying to understand the point in the discussion, asit is getting quite complicated)

If such is acase,I am afraid we are too close to relativistic ethics.

There are 24 posts on the thread prior to yours. You need to be clearer as to what point you are addressing, or it is difficult to know how to respond to you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I thought so. If anyone identifies theological error in what I wrote, I’m sure it will be posted, rather than a commentary on unicorns.

A revelation…not!

Thundered over your head perhaps.
But thanks, imitation is the SFOF.

I may break down your door (physical evil) to pull u from the burning building.

No grave commandment against that “physical evil” is there?
But there is against the “physical evil” of killing.

And in lethal self defence killing certainly “is done” and chosen to be done contrary to your below statement.

 

[Rau]

But there is [a commandment] against the “physical evil” of killing.

Vandalism, such as needlessly breaking down your door, amounts to a theft of your property, which is a moral evil and contrary to the commandment.

The negative precepts admit no exceptions (see FYI Veritatis Splendor ), yet defence of self and others, capital punishment, various fatal acts in war, knocking down your door to save your life - all involve physical evils, and yet when reasonably necessary acts, they are good acts. Thus they cannot be contrary to the commandment. The commandments must be properly understood.

Finally, in cases of self-defence involving death of the aggressor, choosing the death of the aggressor as the means may or may not arise. Certainly our only purpose (first font) in acting must be the good of defence, never the taking a life.

 

[tjaugustine]

There are 24 posts on the thread prior to yours. You need to be clearer as to what point you are addressing, or it is difficult to know how to respond to you.

Sorry for not being clear; my was a response to multiple statements discussing or assessing the evil (physical/moral), its motivation etc. So to make my point in different words: we are very close to relativistic ethic by assessing the situation based on the motivation of the participants (one intends to kill, the other to protect, one has to broke doors to save someone).

I know this is not the case as our Faith is not relativistic, so what is the criteria we are judging the morality of action against? That should help us assess the original questions related to ending of pregnancy in young girl raped and extended discussion about ectopic pregnacy

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sorry for not being clear; my was a response to multiple statements discussing or assessing the evil (physical/moral), its motivation etc. So to make my point in different words: we are very close to relativistic ethic by assessing the situation based on the motivation of the participants (one intends to kill, the other to protect, one has to broke doors to save someone).

I know this is not the case as our Faith is not relativistic, so what is the criteria we are judging the morality of action against? That should help us assess the original questions related to ending of pregnancy in young girl raped and extended discussion about ectopic pregnacy

It has always been the Churches teaching that one may engage in balancing evils done against goods sought in cases of indirect intention if that is what you mean.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…in cases of self-defence involving death of the aggressor, choosing the death of the aggressor as the means may or may not arise. Certainly our only purpose (first font) in acting must be the good of defence, never the taking a life.

“May or may not arise” is a somewhat namby pamby prevarication.
I gave the example of necessary lethal self defence.
In such cases a point often comes when we know we must kill in order to protect.

Tell us again how this never involves plainly choosing and anticipating to kill someone to get what we want. And it can be moral. Not killing is a negative commandment.

Just like the Congo Nuns who certainly chose to contracept.
Not contracepting is allegedly a negative precept.

So excuse me if your explanation of negative precepts admit of no exceptions may not be the right one and that you do seem to be adding more smoke than warmth here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The attacker should be stopped, or the wife protected, by means which do not involve doing evil, and which cause the least harm. In some circumstances, these conditions are met by an act fatal to the attacker.

Just noticed this.
To suggest that a necessary lethal yet moral defence somehow never involves a physical act I didn’t quite know would likely kill my attacker is silly and insulting the intelligence of readers I suggest. Disingenuous use of the passive tense or impersonal descriptions re the killing as if the defender wasnt really there when he killed doesn’t actually hide the contradiction I bring to your attention.

This tells me the solution to your negative precept thing lies elsewhere .

 

[Rau]

Just noticed this.
To suggest that a necessary lethal yet moral defence somehow never involves a physical act I didn’t quite know would likely kill my attacker is silly and insulting the intelligence of readers I suggest. Disingenuous use of the passive tense or impersonal descriptions re the killing as if the defender wasnt really there when he killed doesn’t actually hide the contradiction I bring to your attention.

This tells me the solution to your negative precept thing lies elsewhere .

I have no idea what you are talking about Blue. Are you attempting obfuscation?

The negative precepts are absolute. But the commandment must be understood.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have no idea what you are talking about Blue. Are you attempting obfuscation?

The negative precepts are absolute. But the commandment must be understood.

Never thought you had such strong rationalistic tendencies.
That is, in order to protect the inviolability of an abstract principle your somewhat procrustean mind would render “unintelligible” a straight forward description of a real world scenario .

I believe most here would find nothing particularly confusing re the statements I have made (though I do understand why you would not want to attempt answering them):

(a) A necessary lethal (yet moral) defence may at some point involve choosing a physical act I know will very likely kill my attacker.

(b) The Congo nuns chose to use contraceptives for contraceptive purpose.

Not hard to understand and agree to surely?

I suggest most intelligent, unbiased persons are open enough to agree on acceptable scenario details before they start worrying about the consequences for their somewhat more abstract principles…including ones that allegedly don’t allow of exceptions.
But maybe you not so much.

If this is how you defend your understanding of abstract principles then further discussion is impossible because you have essentially made your abstract principles unchallengeable in practice.

 

[Rau]

Never thought you had such strong rationalistic tendencies.
That is, in order to protect the inviolability of an abstract principle your somewhat procrustean mind would render “unintelligible” a straight forward description of a real world scenario .

I believe most here would find nothing particularly confusing re the statements I have made (though I do understand why you would not want to attempt answering them):

(a) A necessary lethal (yet moral) defence may at some point involve choosing a physical act I know will very likely kill my attacker.

(b) The Congo nuns chose to use contraceptives for contraceptive purpose.

Not hard to understand and agree to surely?

I suggest most intelligent, unbiased persons are open enough to agree on acceptable scenario details before they start worrying about the consequences for their somewhat more abstract principles…including ones that allegedly don’t allow of exceptions.
But maybe you not so much.

If this is how you defend your understanding of abstract principles then further discussion is impossible because you have essentially made your abstract principles unchallengeable in practice.

If you settle down at some later point, I may resume dialogue. But not with you in this frame.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you settle down at some later point, I may resume dialogue. But not with you in this frame.

More evasion of some pretty simple questions .
Starting to develop a pattern there.

 

[LucyEm]

(a) A necessary lethal (yet moral) defence may at some point involve choosing a physical act I know will very likely kill my attacker.

(b) The Congo nuns chose to use contraceptives for contraceptive purpose.

(a) Yeah. So what? The death of the attacker must not be an intended end of course - but may be means - a physical but not moral evil. Certainly that does not violate “Thou shall’t not kill”.

(b) Yeah. So what? Had the “11th commandment” been “Thou shall’t not commit contraception” - the nuns would no more have violated that commandment any more than the rape victim who receives licit treatment in a Catholic hospital to prevent conception. Neither chose to have sex - the one got actually attacked and the other feared it! Terminating the course of the rape (as a response) is not “committing contraception”, and neither is establishing a defence against a potential rape.

Like rau kept telling you above - you gotta understand the commandments.

I suggest most intelligent, unbiased persons are open enough to agree on acceptable scenario details before they start worrying about the consequences for their somewhat more abstract principles…including ones that allegedly don’t allow of exceptions.
But maybe you not so much.

LOL I gotta say, you’re so charming!

 

[tjaugustine]

Please all, let’s settle back to clean discussion, without personal attacks - this is not how we should discourse as followers of our Lord.

To LucyEm: in light of your latest post, point (b): how do you assess the original poster’s situation, where the young girl was raped?

 

[LucyEm]

… in light of your latest post, point (b): how do you assess the original poster’s situation, where the young girl was raped?

What relevance has point (b) to a pregnant 12 year old. There are 2 human beings both in need of medical care. What did you have in mind?

 

[tjaugustine]

What relevance has point (b) to a pregnant 12 year old. There are 2 human beings both in need of medical care. What did you have in mind?

Hi, I do not know the case of Congo nuns, but you mentioned it is related to rape. In the original case, the 12 year old girl was also a victim of rape. I am pondering the links of these cases. But inferring from your reply, it was not your intent to link these.