Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Catholic church excommunicates 9yr old's mother and doctors – but not accused rapist

Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    It was not "necessary medical treatment", it was elective.
    Excommunication latae sententiae is reserved for certain types of wrongdoing by the Church, but this is far from "defending" the others.
    Girls that young are not ready to give birth. She would have been deformed and probably killed. In this way it was treatment, not murder.

    Abortion is not universally wrong, in any case, and that's a fallacy of the Catholic church believing in absolute morality, but that's a separate issue.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Girls that young are not ready to give birth. She would have been deformed and probably killed. In this way it was treatment, not murder.

    Abortion is not universally wrong, in any case, and that's a fallacy of the Catholic church believing in absolute morality, but that's a separate issue.
    I did not say it was murder, but that it was not "necessary"; there could have been a way of her and the unborn baby both surviving.

    I do believe in absolute morality, so I think you are the one in the wrong, but that is not even what I'm debating here.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I did not say it was murder, but that it was not "necessary"; there could have been a way of her and the unborn baby both surviving.

    I do believe in absolute morality, so I think you are the one in the wrong, but that is not even what I'm debating here.
    Medical genius, are we, then?

    If you have an absolute morality, which track would you put an unstoppable train onto, the one with 5 people tied onto it our the one with 1 person tied onto it? Would you harvest one man's organs killing him to guarantee 5 lives?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    All organised religions have hypocrisy as a central tenet.

    No-one should be surprised that dogma has won out over compassion or reason in this case since dogma is the basis of organised religious.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Strike: excommunicate family.
    Defend: not excommunicate rapist.
    Punish: prevent the girl having the necessary medical treatment.
    And I suppose that the British legal system strikes every time it convicts a criminal?
    That is not defending the *alleged* rapist in any way whatsoever.
    She wasn't prevented, as she had the treatment. She shouldn't have, because it constituted murder (x2).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Medical genius, are we, then?

    If you have an absolute morality, which track would you put an unstoppable train onto, the one with 5 people tied onto it our the one with 1 person tied onto it? Would you harvest one man's organs killing him to guarantee 5 lives?
    I think you've broken these out before.

    I wouldn't put a train onto either track. :troll:

    I know where this is going though, trolley boy. If the train were heading for the five, I'd switch it onto the track with the one. I wouldn't kill a man to take his organs.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bardamu)
    If the train were heading for the five, I'd switch it onto the track with the one. I wouldn't kill a man to take his organs.
    Ah! Same human outcome-different moral decision. The definition of relative morality. Thanks very much.

    (btw, trolley boy? wtf?)
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bardamu)
    And I suppose that the British legal system strikes every time it convicts a criminal?
    That is not defending the *alleged* rapist in any way whatsoever.
    She wasn't prevented, as she had the treatment. She shouldn't have, because it constituted murder (x2).
    You are not making sense.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I did not say it was murder, but that it was not "necessary"; there could have been a way of her and the unborn baby both surviving.

    I do believe in absolute morality, so I think you are the one in the wrong, but that is not even what I'm debating here.
    Its a good job religion has little to do with morality.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Ah! Same human outcome-different moral decision. The definition of relative morality. Thanks very much.

    (btw, trolley boy? wtf?)
    They are morally distinct. In the first case, the single man's death is unintended. If he were to escape, even better. I'm not trying to wriggle out of it with “he might not die”, because I understand that that isn't the point. I'm simply proving that his death is unintended. This is the doctrine of double effect.

    In the second case, I would be deliberately killing a man to save others. Unacceptable.

    Well, the problems that you're describing are generally known as trolley problems, or trolley dilemmas, are they not? You seem rather fond of them, so I jokingly dubbed you trolley boy. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are not making sense.
    I can't really say much to that unless you tell me what you don't understand.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronald_mcdonald)
    But that does not change that TWO BEAUTIFUL TWINS HAD THEIR LIVES TAKEN.

    The mother was also 9, which would probably give her an even closer connection to the twins. She could have been both a sister and a mother to the girls. After death of course.

    You don't understand the sanctity of life. We have no right over it, no matter the circumstances. You have a sick mind to think we can abort two beautiful twins in order to save a girl.

    Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
    Logically nonsensical. Even by refusing to act, we are making a significant choice about whose life sanctity of life we would rather protect. By aborting, we are favouring the mother's sanctity of life over the foetus's, and by not aborting we are favouring the foetus's sanctity of life over the mother's. How can you not see this?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronald_mcdonald)
    Don't blame me for your mind's inability to comprehend justice.
    Justice is subjective; my idea of it is different from yours. Try not being so arrogant?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bardamu)
    I can't really say much to that unless you tell me what you don't understand.
    I understand you are not making sense.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is outrageous, also a 9 year old getting an abortion that's so sad, she must have been so scared x
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Ah! Same human outcome-different moral decision. The definition of relative morality. Thanks very much.

    (btw, trolley boy? wtf?)
    If you have an absolute rule that you must minimise the number of deaths caused by your actions should you be unable to avoid human death by any means, then that makes sense. In case 1 the minimum of one person is killed by your action with there being no non-lethal alternative. In case 2 you kill nobody: whatever is causing those five people who could be saved to die is not your responsibility.

    Usually I think of "relative morality" as people who believe that moral principles vary from time to time and/or from culture to culture, or that "whatever society says at the moment is right" etc. Is this an incorrect definition? I have read philosophy books which mention "Moral Relativism" and they usually define it as something like that.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would not be surprised if the Catholic church makes a partial u-turn on this, even they have to keep on top of PR issues. Having the president outright criticise the church should be warning enough.

    If nothing else, this should lead to more debate in Brazil on the nature of the Catholic church. These sorts of idiotic and insensitive conclusions show what a ridiculous organisation it is.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I understand you are not making sense.
    Yes, alright... What doesn't make sense?
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bardamu)
    I think people need to calm down for a moment. Evidently, none of you are Catholic. That doesn't mean that you can't consider the Catholic viewpoint.

    Those twins were nine year old girls too. Not literally, but the sanctity of life is inviolable. The three lives were of equal value. Just for a moment, pretend that you have the two nine year old girls on one hand, and one nine year old girl on the other. What would you do, within the context of this hypothetical situation?
    Considering the lives to be equal:

    The twins require the mother's body to live. She does not require their bodies to live. Have they the right to demand the use of her body, at the expense of her health and very possibly her life?

    If she dies, the twins almost certainly will also die.

    In aborting them, her life and health is salvaged, at no cost to theirs - because they cannot survive this scenario regardless of which action is taken. Even were this not the case - the use of her body to keep them alive is unjust, when it comes at such a high price to her life*.

    *You could liken this to a scenario where a weaker conjoined twin is separated from its sibling, in order that that sibling (who is essentially providing life support) might live. Or else they shall both die. The death of the weaker sibling (or twins, in this abortion case) is an unfortunate side effect of the process of separation to spare the life of the one who's body is being used. The act of separation is not at all equivalent to the act of killing a being which can exist independantly, not at the expense of another's life. The death is not the primary intention, rather the saving of the other's life is the primary intention. This is what distinguishes the death from murder. The doctrine of double effect applies.

    To me this is absolutely clear cut, regardless of how you view the sanctity of the twins lives. If catholicism disagrees, I think it's fair to criticise it for taking that standpoint. Personally - I largely despise catholicism.

    Sidenote: If God doesn't want us to make such decisions, why does he have it that a 9 year old rape victim falls pregnant with unviable twins? Makes me lose respect for the guy frankly. Ofc, I'm not religious.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    If you have an absolute rule that you must minimise the number of deaths caused by your actions should you be unable to avoid human death by any means, then that makes sense. In case 1 the minimum of one person is killed by your action with there being no non-lethal alternative. In case 2 you kill nobody: whatever is causing those five people who could be saved to die is not your responsibility.
    No, you can refuse to act in both scenarios and 5 people will die. They are morally equivalent. (say, for example, you're not actually performing the operation, just allowing a machine to do it or not, the same as in the train tracks.) But in the train situation you would always switch the tracks to the 1 person rather than leave it towards the 5 people, while in the other case, you would never sacrifice one person to save 5. One attempt at reconciling this is that there are separate moral rules for train tracks and hospitals - to which I say, we can keep finding contradictions like this 'ad infinitum' and, in the eventuality, get to a situation which is in itself relative morality - where each individual case has its own "absolute" rules which don't apply automatically to any other case just because they share some similar qualities. Take note that relative morality doesn't mean we can't have guidelines like "abortion is bad when you had unprotected sex", but that those guidelines are not absolute, and subject to bending if the situation demands it.

    Take for example the situation where the one healthy patient is on death row. He consents to have his organs removed and then be euthanised humanely. Then is it moral? I would think so. Again, we've added another detail and the "absolute rule" for this situation has changed, reflecting the fact that absolute morality is fundamentally flawed.

    whatever is causing those five people who could be saved to die is not your responsibility.
    On this point, claiming a lack of responsibility for fellow humans is to me immoral in itself; in a lot of cases we have a responsibility to protect a human life at the cost of time, money, effort, or fewer lives.

    Usually I think of "relative morality" as people who believe that moral principles vary from time to time and/or from culture to culture, or that "whatever society says at the moment is right" etc. Is this an incorrect definition? I have read philosophy books which mention "Moral Relativism" and they usually define it as something like that.
    I think that interpretation of morality is misleading. Relative morality is the view that the situational details surrounding an event influence how we make a moral decision, but that in the ideal case the moral decision should ultimately be accepted by all people in that scenario. This accounts for different cultures, because the culture affects the details. An interpretation of this which takes the cultural differences to be the major point is incorrect and often used in a biased way - in fact, the allowance for cultural differences in morality is only an artefact of the bigger picture, which is that no two situations are identical, so no two moral decisions are identical.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 8, 2012
New on TSR

Vote for your favourite Christmas film

Win a bundle of Xmas DVDs

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.