Moral question regarding abortion/young girls

[Melchior_1]

I appreciate all the responses thus far (and appreciate the efforts to keep things civil). In the case of inducing pregnancy early in order to protect the young woman, wouldn’t some use that as justification to induce before the viability of the child, thus ending the child’s life?

 

[pensmama87]

I appreciate all the responses thus far (and appreciate the efforts to keep things civil). In the case of inducing pregnancy early in order to protect the young woman, wouldn’t some use that as justification to induce before the viability of the child, thus ending the child’s life?

In an ectopic pregnancy, the child has to be removed pre-viability (there are a couple miracle cases where the baby was attached outside the uterus but NOT in the fallopian tube, but in general, the baby cannot stay put that long, because the situation will become more life threatening as the baby grows larger.)

In my understanding, the concern generally with a very young mother is delivery and the mother’s size (as a 12 year old tends to be much smaller and less developed than, say, a 25 year old woman.) Carrying to term or close to it should be possible if the mother is otherwise healthy.

Early inducement tends to be due to other health concerns of the mother, or of the baby, that would not necessarily have anything to do with the mother’s age (except at the other end, because older pregnant women are more likely to have health issues that make pregnancy and delivery more difficult.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

(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 not kill”.

You seem to be saying it may be acceptable to choose to kill someone so long as it is a means (to self protection) and not an end.

How exactly would you say that makes this decision somehow not an exception to thou shall not kill? Most people i suggest believe that choosing to kill someone, either as a means or as an end, is still against the 5th. Just like contracepting should not be intended either as a means or as an end.

(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”…

I would likely agree with you that killing and contraception are analogous moral issues. However you seem to be saying:

• that though killing is still killing in self defence somehow contracepting stopped being done in the case of the Congo nuns.
• while killing may be chosen in self defence if its only a means …I am sure you would disagree applying your principle to contracepting. For if you did then what is wrong with a couple using condoms as a means to limiting family size?
  While I can think of people who enjoy killing purely as an end, which is very wrong, I cannot think of many who seek contracepting as an end in itself. Most see contracepting as a means…and you seem to say that can be OK.

What are your criteria for deciding when killing or contracepting as a means is OK.

 

[LucyEm]

You seem to be saying it may be acceptable to choose to kill someone so long as it is a means (to self protection) and not an end.

How exactly would you say that makes this decision somehow not an exception to thou shall not kill? Most people i suggest believe that choosing to kill someone, either as a means or as an end, is still against the 5th.

Hey, does the opinion of most make it “correct”? Does the prudent sharpshooter rescuing the mortally imperilled break the 5th? Has competent authority trampled the 5th throughout history when deciding (justly) that capital punishment is appropriate? Slaying the innocent is not on. That would be moral evil.

Just like contracepting should not be intended either as a means or as an end.

Contraception (properly recognised) is moral evil.

I think you’regetting hung up on language and not thinking about meaning,

would likely agree with you that killing and contraception are analogous moral issues.

Did I say that? Are you putting words in my “mouth”? :tsktsk:

that though killing is still killing in self defence somehow contracepting stopped being done in the case of the Congo nuns.

What meaning did these acts have? Is moral evil in sight?

while killing may be chosen in self defence if its only a means …I am sure you would disagree applying your principle to contracepting.

what principle? Not sure I’m understanding you. Would you call blocking the course of a rape “contraception”? Are you getting caught up in language and overlooking meaning? Take rau’s earlier example - would you say he stole or vandalised your door in the course of getting into your house to save you? Does the moral import of those words really accord with the meaning of what happened? :nope:

For if you did then what is wrong with a couple using condoms as a means to limiting family size?

Are you pulling my Leg?. You know there’s moral evil here right?

Most see contracepting as a means…and you seem to say that can be OK.

I think where you’re stumbling in confusing words with meanings.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hey, does the opinion of most make it “correct”? Does the prudent sharpshooter rescuing the mortally imperilled break the 5th? Has competent authority trampled the 5th throughout history when deciding (justly) that capital punishment is appropriate? Slaying the innocent is not on. That would be moral evil.

Can you just answer my question? Questioning questions doesn’t really do that.
Keep in mind the issue is self defence not capital punishment or war authorised by the State. Self defence is about individual purposing to kill other individuals without state authorisation.

Contraception (properly recognised) is moral evil.

An accepted but unhelpful generic principle.
If you cannot show its successful working in the breach, eg Congo nuns, then I suggest, as my Moral Theology lecturer was want to opine, you may not fully understand the principle yourself.

I think you’regetting hung up on language and not thinking about meaning,

I believe language is all about meaning.
Especially when debaters like Rau creatively uses words that seem to assert that licit lethal self defenders never purpose to kill their attacker. That I find ridiculous.

would likely agree with you that killing and contraception are analogous moral issues.

Did I say that?

If you say you have 9 toes with 5 on your left foot then I conclude you are saying you have 4 on right .

So if you “didn’t say that” by all means clarify how “Thou shall not contracept” is different from “thou shall not kill” and what you really mean by your words:

BH*:“How exactly would you say that makes this decision somehow not an exception to thou shall not kill? Most people i suggest believe that choosing to kill someone, either as a means or as an end, is still against the 5th. Just like contracepting should not be intended either as a means or as an end.”*
LH: "Yeah. So what? Had the “11th commandment” been “Thou shall’t not commit contraception…”

I assert that “thou shall not kill” holds for both “as a means and as an end” just like the Church’s teaching on contracepting.
Are you disagreeing with this common principle that most Catholics here would take for granted re both “commandments”?

What meaning did these acts have? Is moral evil in sight?

As I put to Rau, just answer the simple question, “did the nuns use contraceptives and if so was it purposing a physical contraceptive result (viz blocking of fertilisation)?”
Its not difficult to understand the question.

what principle? Not sure I’m understanding you. Would you call blocking the course of a rape “contraception”? Are you getting caught up in language and overlooking meaning? Take Rau’s earlier example - would you say he stole or vandalised your door in the course of getting into your house to save you? Does the moral import of those words really accord with the meaning of what happened? :nope
Are you pulling my Leg?. You know there’s moral evil here right?

The question is straight forward. You justify killing on the basis of the principle that it may be purposed as a means, but not as an end.
As above, unless you clarify otherwise, you seem to hold the same for your 11th commandment, “thou shall not contracept.”

So why cannot contracepting (like killing) be justified on the same basis.
The physical evil of contracepting (stopping an egg being fertilised either before or after coitus) as a means to limit family size (an acceptable physical good) may be justified according to the principle you stated re killing.

If you don’t accept that principle for contraception (but you do for killing) I don’t understand how you explain the validity of what the nuns did.

I think where you’re stumbling in confusing words with meanings

That’s a great line you’ve just come out with!
Unless you have perfected the Vulcan mind meld I have no way of understanding your meaning except through your words.
Which then suggests communication is a two way tango and its just as likely that you have expressed yourself poorly if you are humble enough to accept the possibility .

 

[LucyEm]

Can you just answer my question? Questioning questions doesn’t really do that.

Sure - I can choose an act that I know very likely (maybe certainly) means death for the aggressor. [That’s typically as far as I can go - because if by some chance I pull the trigger, and I discover the aggressor utterly comatose and rendered harmless - the context changes, and “killing” becomes a different kind of moral act - no longer about defence of self/others). I can morally do so when I reasonably judge that to be necessary. Perhaps now you could at least answer my question - say, the one about the sharpshooter. Where should he aim his high-powered weapon?

An accepted but unhelpful generic principle.It’s totally the point. You seem to see the moral meaning of contraception in acts with no such *moral *meaning. Just because they use the word contraception.

Congo nuns.

Legend has it they took contraception too. Did the ones who lived an undisturbed life contradict any church teaching by so doing? Nope. Did the ones (if any) who were raped contradict any church teaching. Nope. Same goes for the rape victims administered various licit post-rape treatments which have the effect of preventing contraception. It’s the meaning of the act, not the linguistic term that matters. It’s about moral meaning.

I believe language is all about meaning.

See above. Language is often far from explicit in its capacity to convey meaning accurately.

If you say you have 9 toes with 5 on your left foot then I conclude you are saying you have 4 on right .

Umm - sorry, but I didn’t say anything about toes or arithmetic. :tsktsk: Pretending you drew a straightforward conclusion does not make it so.

So if you “didn’t say that” by all means clarify how “Thou shall not contracept” is different from “thou shall not kill” and what you really mean by your words:

The commandments (including our pretend one here) are about moral meaning, not physical actions. The USCCB authorises post-rape treatment in hospitals that aim to prevent the progress of rapist sperm toward victim egg because the moral meaning of that is terminating a rape. The victim made no free choice to have sex, and prior to conception (just as prior to ejaculation), is under no moral obligation to “let things be”. A wife (a nurse perhaps) waking up one morning after a lovely evening with her husband in bed who gives herself the same treatment as administered to rape victims in hospital performs an act with an altogether different moral meaning.

“did the nuns use contraceptives and if so was it purposing a **physical **contraceptive result (viz blocking of fertilisation)?”

Sure. Just like post-rape treatment in a Catholic hospital. Do you see a moral problem with stopping the course of a rape? Should one pull away from the rapist prior to ejaculation, or beg him to do so? I think that perfectly fine - if you don’t, please explain!

The physical evil of contracepting (stopping an egg being fertilised either before or after coitus) as a means to limit family size (an acceptable physical good) may be justified according to the principle you stated re killing.

No because the moral meaning here is quite different to the moral meaning “stopping a rape”. Physical actions may look similar. True of amputations too, eh? Have you seen what they do prior to heart transplant - they stop your heart! We don’t call the police.

That’s a great line you’ve just come out with!

Well, that’s how I see it. It seems to me you read the words, not concerned about the moral meaning of the act being described (however imperfectly) by those words, and hence every time “contraception” comes up (the word) it must be referring to an immoral act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sure - I can choose an act that I know very likely (maybe certainly) means death for the aggressor. [That’s typically as far as I can go - because if by some chance I pull the trigger, and I discover the aggressor utterly comatose and rendered harmless - the context changes, and “killing” becomes a different kind of moral act - no longer about defence of self/others). I can morally do so when I reasonably judge that to be necessary.

OK you seem to be the sort of person who fizzes a little vaguely all over the place so let’s take this one point at a time.

Here’s the original question:

You seem to be saying it may be acceptable to choose to kill someone so long as it is a means (to self protection) and not an end.How exactly would you say that makes this decision somehow not an exception to thou shall not kill? Most people i suggest believe that choosing to kill someone, either as a means or as an end, is still against the 5th. Just like contracepting should not be intended either as a means or as an end.

Above are you saying that purposing to kill as a means is somehow not an exception to “Thou shall not kill”. The commandment only refers to purposing to kill as an end in itself?

If so what Magisterial support can you muster for this interesting view?

Perhaps now you could at least answer my question - say, the one about the sharpshooter. Where should he aim his high-powered weapon?

I have already answered you, though to see this you need to accept principles of logic (remember the toe thing) which you appear unable to understand or accept .

Hint: it’s about individual self defence here not State authorised killings.
[/quote]

 

[LucyEm]

OK you seem to be the sort of person who fizzes a little vaguely all over the place…

My friends do say I have a bubbly personality. Hope that’s what you meant.

Above are you saying that purposing to kill as a means is somehow not an exception to “Thou shall not kill”. The commandment only refers to purposing to kill as an end in itself?

LOL…what I’m saying is what I said, and I’ll use my words if that’s OK. A means which we judge will be fatal to the aggressor is acceptable (may be deployed) in self-defence - if we reasonably judge it is needed. I think this is crystal clear and is commonly understood by Catholics, ya know!

Hint: Did you forget that little detail that the aggressor is an aggressor? Context! Moral meaning! No moral evil here, thus not contradicting the commandment.

I have already answered you…Hint: it’s about individual self defence here not State authorised killings.

There’s no difference morally between me shooting at my aggressor or a policeman intervening on my behalf. Neither involved judges rendering a verdict and delivering capital punishment. Many will tell you that shooting at the “centre” of a person (with something bigger than an air rifle) is deploying lethal force (expected to kill the aggressor).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

LOL…what I’m saying is what I said, and I’ll use my words if that’s OK.

You can paint with your toes if it will actually help precision your generalised statements thus far.

A means which we judge will be fatal to the aggressor is acceptable (may be deployed) in self-defence - if we reasonably judge it is needed. I think this is crystal clear and is commonly understood by Catholics, ya know!

I know you think the matey colloquialisms add something to your statements or make you look smarter but may I suggest it makes your views come across as shallower than I believe they are.

You prefer to state: “A means which we judge to be fatal” is not always an exception to the 5th.
I asked you if: “purposing to kill as a means” is not always an exception to the 5th.

If these statements are significantly different (which your unwillingness to agree suggests) what is that difference exactly?

May I remind you of the question I asked of you last post on this point:

Do you assert the 5th only refers to purposing to kill as an end in itself?

Its a simple yes no question with no tricks.

And this one:

If so what Magisterial support can you muster for this interesting view?

There’s no difference morally between me shooting at my aggressor or a policeman intervening on my behalf.

Excuse me if I ask for something more than your own personal authority for this unusual assertion?
I believe if you, for example, check out the CCC you will find that the State has traditionally always had more moral freedom than individual citizens when it comes to killing aggressors. Which is why I am speaking of non state self-defence scenarios.
Home owners don’t usually have high powered telescopic rifles readily and relaxedly pointed at their aggressors from a great distance.

 

[LucyEm]

…your views come across as shallower than I believe they are.

Well, thank you!

I asked you if: “purposing to kill as a means” is not always an exception to the 5th.

I’m not sure what that statement is supposed to mean. I expressed my position on the matter (viz. the means a person may use in self-defence) in clear, plain, familiar and unambiguous language. Is my statement unsatisfactory by some measure?

If these statements are significantly different (which your unwillingness to agree suggests) what is that difference exactly?

I dunno. I don’t really care whether you feel the statements are the same or not. I’m very clear what my statement means, and I think any reader would be too.

Perhaps you could let me know if you agree with my statement, rather than first requiring me to express my position in some other way?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, thank you!

I’m not sure what that statement is supposed to mean. I expressed my position on the matter (viz. the means a person may use in self-defence) in clear, plain, familiar and unambiguous language. Is my statement unsatisfactory by some measure?

I dunno. I don’t really care whether you feel the statements are the same or not. I’m very clear what my statement means, and I think any reader would be too.

Perhaps you could let me know if you agree with my statement, rather than first requiring me to express my position in some other way?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, thank you!

I’m not sure what that statement is supposed to mean. I expressed my position on the matter (viz. the means a person may use in self-defence) in clear, plain, familiar and unambiguous language. Is my statement unsatisfactory by some measure?

I dunno. I don’t really care whether you feel the statements are the same or not. I’m very clear what my statement means, and I think any reader would be too.

Perhaps you could let me know if you agree with my statement, rather than first requiring me to express my position in some other way?

I am sorry LE either you are not capable of serious abstract reasoning or are somehow solipsistically resistant to mature good faith openness. and dialogue - interesting though your views may be.

Whatever the cause it is clear that further serious “discussion” is not possible with you though I have tried.

 

[Rau]

Whatever the cause it is clear that further serious “discussion” is not possible with you though I have tried.

Blue, I’m sorry, but I’ve seen several of your forum discussions end in just those words! I am seriously

Pity you didn’t tell us how you felt about Lucy’s positions.

Lucy - I found your posts clear and to the point and I concur with your positions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue, I’m sorry, but I’ve seen several of your forum discussions end in just those words!

As have you of late also.
It isn’t a sin to wisely terminate unfruitful conversation with persons too untrustingly sollipsistic or nervous to make or explain clear no nonsense statements or unwilling to seriously consider and directly respond to equally no nonsense questions.

Glossing over real world disconnects or principled dissonances with inventively constructed
sentences that one jealously guards and declines to openly deconstruct does nothing to reverse the sollipsistic impression.

I can understand your support for Lucy as you recently demonstrated the same tendency.
Additionally you yourself terminated with me and so did what you now critique myself of .

Pity you didn’t tell us how you felt about Lucy’s positions.

I think I made it clear I felt Lucy’s position was interesting even though it appeared to have eventual internally contradictory dissonances.
We will never know because Lucy declined in practice to allow a spotlight to be shone on those areas where I detected possible dissonance…as was the case with yourself.

 

[Rau]

As have you of late also.
It isn’t a sin to wisely terminate unfruitful conversation with persons too untrustingly sollipsistic or nervous to make or explain clear no nonsense statements or unwilling to seriously consider and directly respond to equally no nonsense questions.

Glossing over real world disconnects or principled dissonances with inventively constructed
sentences that one jealously guards and declines to openly deconstruct does nothing to reverse the sollipsistic impression.

I don’t know -I thought she expressed herself remarkably clearly and theologically soundly. I don’t blame her for not wanting to adopt that expression you were pushing. She said she didn’t know what it meant - not sure I do either!

Additionally you yourself terminated with me and so did what you now critique myself of

Difference is she was behaving well and you withdrew, denigrating her as you left. I withdrew (minus the denigration) because you were not behaving well.

I think I made it clear I felt Lucy’s position was interesting even though it appeared to have eventual internally contradictory dissonances.

No dissonance that I detected. If there was a problem with the positions she put, you never identified it.

We will never know because Lucy declined in practice to allow a spotlight to be shone on those areas where I detected possible dissonance…

Is that what you were doing? It looked like you were trying to put (opaque) words in her mouth!

 

[LucyEm]

It looked like you were trying to put (opaque) words in her mouth!

Yeah, that was my issue - and that the expression was…unclear to me.
But I now think I know what he means by
You justify killing on the basis of the principle that it may be purposed as a means, but not as an end.

By “killing purposed as a means” - he means an act (behaviour) that pursues, or demands death - which is not the behaviour to which I referred. As I explained that’s not what it means to choose lethal force, or an act one knows will (likely, even certainly), kill. I explained that in post 46 when pointing out that if the lethal act chosen did not kill (perhaps to my great surprise), but did render the aggressor harmless, I need to stop.

In self-defence, we never “need” the death of the assailant , so we have no right to pursue it - we just need his actions terminated, and putting his life in mortal peril is acceptable if reasonably necessary. We can use as little or as much force as needed, choosing from options open to us. Right up to ones where death of the aggressor would seem a certainty.

I didn’t agree or disagree with BH’s statement because I didn’t know what he understood by it (and said so) - since to do so in ignorance leads to conversations where people talk past each other. Don’t know why BH wouldn’t tell me whether he agreed or not with my statement - which at least was in plain language.

So the thinkgI am justifying as means is choosing an act expected to kill an aggressor, which that reasonably seems necessary. Ensuring he dies is not included.

“May I kill the aggressor? in self defence” is a less clear question than it seems. Yes, I may be justified in taking an action that I fully expect to kill, and people will say rightly "You killed him". No, I am not justified in pursuing the aggressor till death. That final act, perhaps to shoot the comatose man in the head as he lay disarmed and harmless on the ground - is not an act of self-defence, but of murder.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t know -I thought she expressed herself remarkably clearly and theologically soundly. I don’t blame her for not wanting to adopt that expression you were pushing. She said she didn’t know what it meant - not sure I do either!

Difference is she was behaving well and you withdrew, denigrating her as you left. I withdrew (minus the denigration) because you were not behaving well.

No dissonance that I detected. If there was a problem with the positions she put, you never identified it.

Is that what you were doing? It looked like you were trying to put (opaque) words in her mouth!

Extraordinary how you call repeat avoiding of questions and unwillingness to clarify why other persons restatements are not acceptable “behaving well”.

As you seem to have an apriori view that honestly critiquing is always denigrating you will have to excuse me if I take that comment with a grain of salt (is inability to agree with you also “denigrating” ).

You have a similar mindset re the issue which I believe is internally contradictory, interesting theologically though it initially looks.
However neither of you are capable of opening up to deeper probing so there you go.
But as I say, I am over both of you on this topic.

 

[Rau]

Extraordinary how you call repeat avoiding of questions and unwillingness to clarify why other persons restatements are not acceptable “behaving well”.

I see no reason not to decline to concur that totally different expressions mean the same/or different until one has reached that conclusion. And in post #55 Lucy arrived at a view about the meaning of your expression and analysed it to demonstrate how it can mean something different than she described (eg. in posts: #46, #48) She asked you multiple times how you felt about her statement - you never answered. Instead, you responded as per the extract below from post #51.

As you seem to have an apriori view that honestly critiquing is always denigrating

… there you go again - rewriting history. You call what you do (in thread after thread) “honestly critiquing” (an argument, I assume you mean) while I call it denigrating. the poster. I have in mind statements by you such as (post numbers indicated):

To Lucy you said:
“you seem to be the sort of person who fizzes a little vaguely all over the place…” (#47)
"you need to accept principles of logic…which you appear unable to understand or accept " (#47)
“either you are not capable of serious abstract reasoning or are somehow solipsistically resistant to mature good faith openness. and dialogue” (#51)

To Rau you said:
“I suggest most intelligent, unbiased persons are open enough to…But maybe you not so much” (#34)

I don’t think many would view these as “honestly critiquing” a person’s arguments, but rather the asserting of opinions about the person and/or his/her capacities.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I see no reason not to decline to concur that totally different expressions mean the same/or different until one has reached that conclusion. And in post #55 Lucy arrived at a view about the meaning of your expression and analysed it to demonstrate how it can mean something different than she described (eg. in posts: #46, #48) She asked you multiple times how you felt about her statement - you never answered. Instead, you responded as per the extract below from post #51.

… there you go again - rewriting history. You call what you do (in thread after thread) “honestly critiquing” (an argument, I assume you mean) while I call it denigrating. the poster. I have in mind statements by you such as (post numbers indicated):

To Lucy you said:
“you seem to be the sort of person who fizzes a little vaguely all over the place…” (#47)
"you need to accept principles of logic…which you appear unable to understand or accept " (#47)
“either you are not capable of serious abstract reasoning or are somehow solipsistically resistant to mature good faith openness. and dialogue” (#51)

To Rau you said:
“I suggest most intelligent, unbiased persons are open enough to…But maybe you not so much” (#34)

I don’t think many would view these as “honestly critiquing” a person’s arguments, but rather the asserting of opinions about the person and/or his/her capacities.

Give it up Rau, it’s over.

 

[pensmama87]

Anyway, backing away from these personal feuds and returning to the OP’s question…