SSM debate: the sterility objection

[spencelo]

No. The definition is the definition of what it means for an act to be ordered to a goal. I am saying that, so far as I understand, an act (taken without consideration of motivations of the person committing it) is ordered towards an end if that act in it’s natural form could accomplish that end, and the only thing that can change this "ordered to"ness in a particular case is a purposeful attempt to dodge the end, whether by purposefully relying on things beyond the person’s control or by actively changing something.

Both Bob and Jane undergo operations in order to become permanently sterile (to avoid having children), and the operations are successful. When they have penis-vagina sex, is that act “ordered towards procreation?”

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Both Bob and Jane undergo operations in order to become permanently sterile (to avoid having children), and the operations are successful. When they have penis-vagina sex, is that act “ordered towards procreation?”

Depends on the motivations at the time of the act. See previous.

 

[spencelo]

Depends on the motivations at the time of the act. See previous.

I thought it was clear from my example that whenever Bob and Jane engage in penis-vagina sex after their operations (performed for the purpose of avoid children), they no motivations, intentions, desires, or hopes to have children. Is their sex act “ordered towards procreation?”

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I thought it was clear from my example that whenever Bob and Jane engage in penis-vagina sex after their operations (performed for the purpose of avoid children), they no motivations, intentions, desires, or hopes to have children. Is their sex act “ordered towards procreation?”

Motivations, desires, or hopes for children are not strictly necessary, only acceptance of the possibility and lack of messing with it at the specific time of the act.

Ordered towards procreation case: They don’t have to want children for the act to be ordered towards procreation, they merely have to recognize that that is what the act is for and accept it as the “natural outcome” which, should it occur, would be acceptable even if not particularly desired. Again, along the lines of “shooting” an unloaded gun at someone’s head knowing that it won’t doing anything, but considering the “natural result” of that person now having a hole in the head acceptable. The person may not want children. The person may be happy to probably not have children. But the person has to recognize that children is the natural result and accept that as an acceptable (yeah, it’s late) thing.

Not ordered towards procreation case: They consider the sterilization to be a good thing (more or less), and are essentially treating it like an always active contraceptive.

For the record, we’re getting really close to talking about NFP, but I suggest we ignore it for the moment. If you were heading there on purpose, then I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to write about it. My 1am reasoning is only sporadically good, and then only on random subjects - so unless you want to know something like why extra greasy chilli dogs are the best breakfast food for college students (freshman college essay, probably best not ask why I wrote about that), I think I’m going to sign off for the night.

 

[spencelo]

Motivations, desires, or hopes for children are not strictly necessary, only acceptance of the possibility and lack of messing with it at the specific time of the act.

Ordered towards procreation case: They don’t have to want children for the act to be ordered towards procreation, they merely have to recognize that that is what the act is for and accept it as the “natural outcome” which, should it occur, would be acceptable even if not particularly desired. Again, along the lines of “shooting” an unloaded gun at someone’s head knowing that it won’t doing anything, but considering the “natural result” of that person now having a hole in the head acceptable. The person may not want children. The person may be happy to probably not have children. But the person has to recognize that children is the natural result and accept that as an acceptable (yeah, it’s late) thing.

After their (successful) operation, Bob and Jane have sex only for pleasure. The idea of having children is repulsive to them. What exactly do they have to recognize and accept, consistent with the prior assumptions, in order for their act to be “ordered towards procreation?” You say “recognize that children is the natural result?” Natural result of what?

 

[epan]

There’s always a possibility that a man and woman can conceive even if they are considered sterile. This can be because people thought they were sterile and were wrong or because of divine intervention. There are biblical examples of this and examples in our own day. But there’s never a possibility that a man can get another man pregnant since the male body was not made for getting pregnant. Men only have one sex organ, the penis. And women only have one sex organ, the vagina. And these were made to be complementary to each other. This is basic biology.

How about a women who has had a hysterectomy? I have a cousin who had an infection as a child, and both ovaries were removed. Yet, she married. There is no way for her to have children. It seems to me that sex with her husband can never be “ordered toward procreation.” It could mimic that which is ordered toward procreation.

 

[epan]

Then birth control medication is fine, right?

If the argument is that any act which mimics that which could theoretically result in procreation, then yes, birth control is fine.

For example, the argument is made that sex between couples who are sterile is ordered toward procreation, because there is an infinitesimally small probability of procreation (though this is a false premise in many cases). But, if we accept this reasoning, then we must conclude that contraception is allowed by the same reasoning, as the odds of procreation are higher with contraceptives than among a sterile pair. By the procreation argument, sex with contraception is more “ordered” than sex between infertile people.

 

[fix]

(1) If same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, and there are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples, then permanently sterile opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry for the exact same reason: because they can’t procreate.

(2) There are no relevant differences between same-sex couples and permanently sterile opposite-sex couples.

(3) Therefore, if same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, then permanently sterile opposite-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry for the exact same reason: because they can’t procreate.

Objectively a man and woman engage in the marital act that is ordered toward procreation regardless of likelihood of conception.

Same sex persons are never ordered toward procreation. It is impossible.

Individuals may take steps to intentionally supress their fertility, and that is disordered in their particular case, but the act could be ordered correctly unlike same sex persons that can never order the act correctly.

 

[spencelo]

Objectively a man and woman engage in the marital act that is ordered toward procreation regardless of likelihood of conception.

Why’s that? Define “ordered towards procreation.”

 

[fix]

Why’s that? Define “ordered towards procreation.”

It is self evident. Only male and female can produce a baby, not man and man or woman and woman. Subjective infertility does not negate the design by nature.

 

[JimG]

Are you opposed to impotent couples being allowed to marry civilly (i.e., NOT in a Catholic Church)?

No, because it is generally not self-evident, nor is it apparent that the condition is permanent. Even the Church relies on self-evaluation here; no medical exam is required. Obviously though, if one of the parties later filed for annulment on the basis of permanent and antecedent impotence which could be proven, there would be grounds for annulment rather than divorce.

 

[spencelo]

It is self evident. Only male and female can produce a baby, not man and man or woman and woman. Subjective infertility does not negate the design by nature.

It’s certainly not self-evident, and I don’t know what you mean by “subjective infertility.” It’s an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples are incapable of procreating.

 

[spencelo]

No, because it is generally not self-evident, nor is it apparent that the condition is permanent.

In some cases, it is very apparent that the condition is permanent (e.g., severe paraplegics).

 

[epan]

It’s certainly not self-evident, and I don’t know what you mean by “subjective infertility.” It’s an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples are incapable of procreating.

“subjective infertility”? What is that?

 

[fix]

It’s certainly not self-evident, and I don’t know what you mean by “subjective infertility.” It’s an objective fact that many opposite-sex couples are incapable of procreating.

Objective reality is that male and female are fertile. Subjectively there are persons who are not fertile for various reasons. That is not normal or it may be due to age.

Not unlike saying objectively humans have eyes to see. Some may be blind but that is not the design.

It is obvious.

 

[fix]

“subjective infertility”? What is that?

The objective norm is fertility. There are subjective cases of couples that are infertile.

Same sex persons are never fertile, by design.

I find it amusing that these basic facts need to be stated.

 

[JimG]

In some cases, it is very apparent that the condition is permanent (e.g., severe paraplegics).

Yes, and in cases where permanent and antecedent inability to consummate the marriage was apparent, they could not be married in the Church. As to whether civil law has such a restriction, I do not know. In any case, such a marriage would be null from the outset because of inability to complete the marital act, and could presumably be easily nullified, even civilly.

 

[epan]

The objective norm is fertility. There are subjective cases of couples that are infertile.

Same sex persons are never fertile, by design.

I find it amusing that these basic facts need to be stated.

Objectively, my cousin had her ovaries removed at the age of 13. Objectively, she is sterile.

You are playing with semantics to make a weak argument.

 

[spencelo]

Objective reality is that male and female are fertile. Subjectively there are persons who are not fertile for various reasons. That is not normal or it may be due to age.

Not unlike saying objectively humans have eyes to see. Some may be blind but that is not the design.

It is obvious.

You are using the terms “objective” and “subjective” in a very odd way. What do you mean by “objective” and “subjective?” Why is it not accurate to say that it’s an objective fact that some humans are blind?

 

[fix]

Objectively, my cousin had her ovaries removed at the age of 13. Objectively, she is sterile.

You are playing with semantics to make a weak argument.

Yes, she is sterile but objectively the norm is to be fertile. It is not a weak argument at all in fact I find your position weak.

If I asked a first grader if two men could make a baby what would be the answer?

The point is that male and female are fertile by design. Yes, exceptions may occur due to pathology but those exceptions are not the norm. The marital act is still ordered correctly.

Ordered toward procreation does not equal likelihood of conception.