I do believe that a fetus is a person. But as our conversations about trolley cars and conjoined twins have demonstrated, this is not merely an affirmation of that point, but a struggle to handle the moral question raised when it intersects with other intuitively obvious points of natural law, such as the need to protect and save the lives of nine year old girls, pregnant by rape. My entire upbringing has contained the message, strongly delivered, that such victims deserve our utmost protection.
And I don’t need to prove that to you, Shot From Guns – because you already know it. You rest your case on this particular exemplar precisely because you know it flies in the face of every decent impulse people in our society have.
Ugh, sorry for the double-post; dunno how I missed that whole later chunk of the page.
Not a merry time. I’d just like you to put some serious consideration into all aspects of the faith you profess. Because some parts of it are fucking disgusting.
But a few dead or mutilated women apparently don’t matter to you, as long as the RCC doesn’t officially announce that their purpose is to rape children.
No, the question was not “what would you do.” The question was, “What would your bishop say if that were your position?”
Also, you haven’t answered the question about what you would consider to be a level of heresy necessary for excommunication.
Actually, you have a bigger problem than that. You cannot be truly absolved of your sin unless you (a) acknowledge that it was a sin and (b) sincerely intend to not repeat it. But you do not acknowledge that it was sinful, and you most certainly intent to maintain the position that killing a fetus through direct abortion to save the mother is acceptable. Now, you could lie to the priest, but as far as your beliefs go, that doesn’t count, and you’re still damned (or at least racking up years in Purgatory).
ETA:
Let’s not make it about the raped nine-year-old, then. Let’s make it a 30-year-old woman. No rape. Just a “normal” pregnancy that’s gone wrong, and she’ll die if it isn’t aborted. And don’t give me that “our society says X” bullshit. Society says a lot of things that the RCC disagrees with–are you going to have extramarital sex just 'cause society says it’s okay, too?
If it isn’t directly aborted? There’s no other medical intervention with a chance of saving the mother without directly attacking the unborn child?
Give me an example of such a medical condition.
The bottom line is, like our conjoined twins in the other thread, there are two human patients involved in this decision, in my view. And the medical course of action must focus on that understanding. Each has a right to life. The mother’s right is not superior to, nor inferior to, her unborn child’s right.
Well, my wife has some strong opinions about that question.
It seems to me that your stance might well fall under that. You’ve agreed that your stance on this particular abortion case is against the revealed truths of canon law. You’ve been persistent and obstinate in that stance. And you are not unencumbered by ignorance, because you are aware that your stance contradicts the revealed truths.
Judging by what I’ve researched, though, that level of heresy only means that you can be excommunicated, not that you must be or are immediately excommunicated by your actions. And I’m not certain that “invincible ignorance” is a concern here; at the very least, if someone with academic training in canon law can claim ignorance, surely anyone can.
An understanding of what “natural law” requires can only be a factor if it is possible to define what “natural law” actually is, other than yet another gratuitous assertion with a gratuitous name stuck on it.
Invincible ignorance occurs when the revealed truth is not accepted despite careful consideration, study, and thought. My study ensures that this is not crass or supine vincible ignorance, but something that I cannot, despite a clear and precise understanding of what the truth is, accept it. It’s the precise definition of invincible ignorance, since accepting it would require that I reject basic messages that have, from birth, been inculcated in me about decent and moral conduct.
Now, you’re correct that that level of heresy might be subject to excommunication, or some lesser penal sanction, following a trial. But it’s clearly not the automatically-imposed penalty in play here.
But were you raised Catholic, Bricker? If so, then you *should *have been inculcated from birth with the message that direct abortion is always murder and never acceptable, but you chose the more personally convenient interpretation given to you by society over what the RCC explicitly taught.
Yes, but in which of these conditions do we have the absolute certainty of maternal death you mentioned? I know we do in ectopic pregnancy, but as I have mentioned before, a partial salpingectomy saves the mother’s life without driectly killing the child. Your cite mentions abortion when a “risk for maternal survival” exists. This is a switch from your utterly certain guidelines of a moment ago.
I see eclampsia on the list. I know many women manage to carry a baby to term by managing the eclampsia. Undoubtedly you feel that they shouldn’t have to take that risk, but why is their right to life greater than that of their child’s?
The same question applies to every one of those circumstances. If the mother truly cannot be saved by any other method but a direct attack on the child, with near-certain outcomes of death for each if this is not done, I’d like to get some kind of actual example in front of me.
Yes, society says a lot of things. But society does not say that extramarital sex is required, necessary, the very bedrock of decent behavior.
Society DOES say that about saving lives of pregnant nine year old rape victims. Society does not deliver a mixed message on that point.
Yes, I was raised Catholic. But my Catholic upbringing did not touch on these issues. As many others in related threads have shared, these kinds of questions did not arise at all my my early Catholic education.
So you’re saying that if a woman is at risk of serious illness or death, she should not be allowed* to terminate the pregnancy unless it’s almost absolutely certain that it will cause her death (i.e., to the same level as an ectopic pregnancy)? What’s your cutoff for when the woman is allowed to kill the fetus to preserve her own health or life? Even ectopic pregnancies aren’t *certain *death–merely obscenely likely.
*If you separate your religious beliefs from your political ones, feel free to amend this in such a way that it applies to what is “allowed” morally versus legally.
Because **The Tao’s Revenge **claimed that you’d said something in the other thread that you hadn’t, and I pointed out that you’d actually said the opposite.
Can I ask that we move this discussion either to its own thread, or to the “Motherfucking Pope” thread, and preserve this one for the purpose originally intended?
Fine by me–I would even suggest putting it in GD. Although my continued presence here might be intermittent: this morning I just rolled out version 3.0 of the software project I’ve been working on for six months, and so now come the bug fixes…
Oh, I’m sorry to have intruded on your little masturbatory congratulation session. By all means, feel free to move any further replies on the subject to the other thread.
And returning to the subject of THIS thread… you call it a “little masturbatory congratulation session.”
So… is there any point at all in which I could have brought up the wrong prediction Steve MB made? Or is it your position that such things are simply out of reach, never appropriate fodder for discussion after the fact?
If you scroll back to page 1, you’ll note that I thought the thread was awesome. That doesn’t mean it’s not a masturbatory congratulation session. Nothing *wrong *with a little masturbatory congratulation–just let’s be honest about what it is.