You’re still treating intention and moral object as interchangeable, which is why your replies keep circling.
Your intention was either:
“avoid pregnancy,” or “avoid pregnancy to prevent my wife from possibly dying.”
But neither of those was your moral object.
Your moral object was:
“directly sterilize the sexual act so intercourse can continue without procreation.”
That is a different kind of act than:
– periodic abstinence
– total abstinence
Same intention.
Different chosen behavior.
Different moral species.
You said: “no normal healthy married couple would choose to not have sexual relations anymore.”
That doesn’t describe impossibility; it describes unwillingness.
Abstinence is physically possible, morally licit, and achieves the same intention — avoiding pregnancy.
So when you say no normal couple would choose it, you’re admitting it was a real option, just one you rejected because you didn’t want to give up intercourse.
And whether something is “normal” has no bearing on whether it is morally available.
“Normal” is both subjective and statistical — not moral.
What most people prefer has no bearing on what the act is.
If “most people do it” made something morally acceptable, then anything would become moral as long as enough people chose it — which is absurd.
And that’s exactly why the decisive factor in getting a vasectomy wasn’t “saving your wife” — abstinence would have done that — but preserving intercourse while eliminating its procreative meaning.
That is the moral object.
And repeating “my intention was X” doesn’t change the nature of the act you chose.
As for statistics: moral truth isn’t determined by how many people violate it.
If you reject Catholic moral reasoning, just say that.
But rejecting the framework is not the same as refuting the distinction.
