Okay, thank you, and thanks to raventhief for the link. Based on this, it’s not nearly as morally awful as I thought, but the automatic policy still strikes me as potentially very cruel, since it may have subjected this family to needless and counter-productive angst about the proper course of action (obviously, abortion, in this particular case) to keep their daughter safe and healthy.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Yes, but the cure for that is a clearer and more transparent explanation of the canon law process. Canon Law, Can. 1324 fl1, provides that the latae sententiae excommunication does not activate when the subjects acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience. And it does not apply against one who, through no personal fault, was unaware that a penalty was attached to the conduct.
This is why I feel that it’s deceptive to say, “The Catholic Church excommunicated the mother who allowed a legal abortion and the doctor who performed it on a nine year old girl pregnant with twins, but not the stepfather who knocked her up.” The sentence suggests that some decision was made. What happened was that the law was applied, and in this case the WHOLE canon law means that no excommunication happened.
Do you agree (or disagree) that Annie’s description is deceptive?
“Deceptive” implies intent (which I won’t comment on), I think – I would characterize it as incomplete.
Sure, initially, I’ll go along with that.
But now, after the benefit of the facts adduced in this discussion?
I assume your wife’;s pregnancy was wanted and anticipated - do you suppose that may have an impact on the level of “inconvenience” she determined the pregnancy to present?
For instance, ectopic pregnancies present considerable risk, but usually resolve themselves. A woman who is trying to get pregnant will feel considerably different about such a pregnancy than a woman who did not want to be pregnant. One woman may find the risk of hemorrhage to be a mild risk; another may find such a risk considerably more frightening. A friend of mine was hospitalized *repeatedly *for Hyperemesis gravidarum , which according to this cite, occurs in about 1% of pregnancies (UK). Her feelings on it might have been dramatically different if she were unwillingly pregnant. As it was, she was willing to undergo it for the sake of her daughter.
Yes. I noticed that you left out any mention of “serious” or “severe” in post 217 where you originally cited that article, but then corrected yourself after **Dangerosa **called your statistics into question with other complications. Next time, try including the qualifiers in the cite you’re quoting/paraphrasing. Otherwise, expect it to be pointed out that the cite doesn’t quite say what you claim it does. You should know this.
Still, since your wife deems her wanted pregnancy to be a mere inconvenience, you’ve decided that all other women who don’t experience “serious” or “severe” complications are also merely inconvenienced by theirs?
I’m glad for her, but let me assure you, it’s not just the complications that make pregnancy more than just an inconvenience for many, many women – particularly those experiencing an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Your wife’s experience is singular; several others in this thread feel differently. It’s one thing for her to refer to her own pregnancy as an inconvenience, but that doesn’t make it right for you – especially as a man having no frame of reference that is your own – to call all uncomplicated pregnancies of other women inconveniences. It’s extremely callous, presumptuous, and dismissive of the experiences of other women. Don’t do it, man!
We’re tired of men telling us how we should feel and what we’re allowed to do with our bodies. Just stop already.
Yes, it’s a foreign (and, for some, unwanted) presence inside their bodies. If they want it out, and it won’t leave on it’s own, then they can use force to remove it… Just as if there were a penis inside her that she did not want - if the invader won’t leave upon being told, she can use force to evict them. Even if she had previously invited them in.
Actually, I was quoting her as to the general experience – that is, her words are the ones you’re taking issue with.
Right. So to blunt this criticism, I asked my wife to supply the language for my response, because (from previous experience) I anticipated this line of defense. So what you read was merely a man’s transcription of a woman’s words.
Sure.
Sure, I agree.
I don’t know. I may not have followed every single post (and I’m not terribly interested in whether/how Annie might have been wrong).
Would it be fair to say you’re more interested in whether I’m wrong?
It might be reasonable to suspect (I am human, I’ll admit), but if so, it’s not conscious.
You’ll notice that I entered this thread asking you about your feelings, so it’s reasonable to suspect that in more interested in your feelings than those of others in this thread.
What fun is exploring the feelings of those that i mostly agree with?
Let me invite you to consider the effort you’ve put into this thread directed at the positions I’ve espoused.
And then let me ask you to contrast that effort with the . . . ennui, let’s say, that surrounds my invitation to consider Annie’s error.
Does that edge any realizations closer to your conscious consideration?
Quite consciously I’m much more interested in exploring the feelings and opinions of those I mostly disagree with over those I mostly agree with.
Yes, in this you are hardly unique.
But let me extend a further invitation for consideration: when you only challenge the opinions with which you already disagree, you allow yourself to remain persuaded by weaker argument and weaker claims of fact.
A study from a guy named Gruca is interesting in this regard. He analyzed traders in a real-money trading market that predicted movie revenues over a ten year period.
I suggest to you that “being human” is exactly the right model to describe this behavior. It’s a pattern of flawed thinking that is very human. But I also suggest that being human gives us the analytical tools to recognize and work against those poor cognitive behaviors.
I try to constantly ask myself if I have re-evaluated my assumptions as new evidence emerges. For example,in another pro-life thread in 2013, I defended mandatory ultrasounds as a useful way for the pregnant patient to understand the reality of what was being aborted.
But then I learned, in 2014, that despite this mandate being in place, there was only a tiny, perhaps insignificant effect in reduction of abortions. So I abandoned that position: new evidence showed me I was wrong.
This is all good stuff, and I agree with you. Sometimes I’m lazier (or otherwise not in the mood to police myself and my ‘allies’) than other times. I’ll strive to do better, of course, while recognizing that I go on the Dope, sometimes, to be at ease, which is less conducive to this sort of policing.
However, in this particular case there’s an additional issue – I’m loathe to lecture any woman about what I see as an issue of women’s health and women’s lives, just as I’d be loathe to lecture a Hispanic person about any difficulties associated with being Hispanic, or similar.
Just so you know, I oppose the abortion of unborn Hispanic children, and as you may recall, I am Hispanic.
Does that armor me against your future remonstrations?
Annie’s mistake here has less to do with women’s health and more to do woth correctly describing a process of the Catholic Church, one which you now know operates differently than you first imagined when reading her words. (Just as my discussion here has less to do with Hispanic issues and more to do with abortion).
Not on abortion, no. Though I wasn’t remonstrating you – just explaining my hesitation.
I’m not so sure. It doesn’t operate that differently than I understood – it still has a knee jerk potential cruelty, IMO, to people who may have been seriously harmed (raped, etc.) with regards to abortion. Of course, it doesn’t help that I see their entire position on the issue (and other women’s health issues like birth control) as harmful and cruel to women, even if the church believes this is the morally correct stance.
Well, it’s only serious because of the unfalsifiable premise of your objection. Abortion can just as easily be viewed as a minor medical procedure of concern only to the patient and her doctor.
It’s not a rule; it’s my evaluation of your goal. If mandatory ultrasounds and other medically-unnecessary intrusions are not defendible because they stem from the notion that women are too dumb to fully understand what pregnancy is, this alternate approach using taxes and accounting might work instead, and a major tell is if it doesn’t apply to other non-subsidized activities.
I get it - you hate abortion but you also hate looking like the bad guy, so the search is on for a way to interfere yet maintain a wide-eyed innocence. The notion that women needed to be more fully informed was too obviously condescending so give tax law a try, why not?
And of course you don’t “must” do a damn thing.
