MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

[bsjkki]

Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) did not produce a statement standing up for pro-life policies. They had a statement on the government shutdown but stayed silent on the abortion debates happening in many states. Disappointing. 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by bsjkki

[Calm]

I am not seeing anything particularly bipartisan in their choice of statements just from the headlines.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) did not produce a statement standing up for pro-life policies. They had a statement on the government shutdown but stayed silent on the abortion debates happening in many states. Disappointing. 

 

What does the abortion debate have to do with ethical government?

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

What does the abortion debate have to do with ethical government?

Well, I guess if you find the government condoned killing of babies unethical.

 

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

What does the abortion debate have to do with ethical government?

I guess if you don't see that, it might be hard explain but I will try. Ethical governments should protect life. Ethical governments should not cheer laws that strip protections for the unborn. A lds group should support the church's stance on abortion. From lds.org.

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services. (Italics and Bold mine)

The New York law stripped these protections out of their state laws. I would have thought this group of lds women would have made a statement about this issue. Personally, I am curious to know what they would say. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I would have thought this group of lds women would have made a statement about this issue. Personally, I am curious to know what they would say. 

Have you asked them? 

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you asked them? 

That is a good suggestion but I follow their statements and thought they would have one on this issue. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you asked them? 

Do you think a political action group really needs to be asked about such a major topic of the last few weeks?  It is not like they don't comment regularly on most other things. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you think a political action group really needs to be asked about such a major topic of the last few weeks?  It is not like they don't comment regularly on most other things. 

I don’t know. I’ve never heard of this group before, and where I live, this hasn’t been a major topic. I am a fan of asking questions directly of people and not just floating them on internet sites. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Well, I guess if you find the government condoned killing of babies unethical.

 

Not everything is about abortion, despite the hucksters who keep power on one issue voters trying to make it so. There is nothing ethical about the government inserting itself between women and their physicians regarding medical decisions like abortion.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I guess if you don't see that, it might be hard explain but I will try. Ethical governments should protect life. Ethical governments should not cheer laws that strip protections for the unborn. A lds group should support the church's stance on abortion. From lds.org.

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services. (Italics and Bold mine)

The New York law stripped these protections out of their state laws. I would have thought this group of lds women would have made a statement about this issue. Personally, I am curious to know what they would say. 

I guess the church is against your idea of ethical government, since church policy on abortion is based on women being able to freely get one if needed. In that case MWEG are right not to get involved in the pro-birth movement.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I guess the church is against your idea of ethical government, since church policy on abortion is based on women being able to freely get one if needed. In that case MWEG are right not to get involved in the pro-birth movement.

Do you believe government should set any limits on abortion? 

[Calm]

The Church guidelines involve one physician helping a woman (and hopefully a man/father is there as well) make the decision based on her mental and physical health.  

My understanding of the New York Guidelines for at least late term abortions follow the same outline now...one physician instead of a second opinion required, and dependent on the mental and physical health of themother and fetus/baby as opposed to being life threatening.

Earlier abortions allow for convenience and therefore don't line up with church guidelines, but I don't know if any restrictions on those have been changed.  

I am bothered by the possibility that assaulting a pregnant woman with the intent to cause a miscarriage might not be able to be charged as a crime, but if it can't, a criminal law dealing specifically with that could be written.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Church guidelines involve one physician helping a woman (and hopefully a man/father is there as well) make the decision based on her mental and physical health.  

My understanding of the New York Guidelines for at least late term abortions follow the same outline now...one physician instead of a second opinion required, and dependent on the mental and physical health of the fetus/baby.

The church statement is much different than New York’s law because it states “serious jeopardy.”  They are also supposed to consult with church leaders and most importantly , their Heavenly Father. President Nelson states,

 

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method.9

Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins.10 To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng

Edited February 6, 2019 by bsjkki

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They are also supposed to consult with church leaders and most importantly , their Heavenly Father.

That is not exactly something our government could require though.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion

I definitely agree with that.

[bsjkki]

New York’s law does not define “health.”

“New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

They have made getting a late term abortion as easy as getting your medical marijuana prescription.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not everything is about abortion, despite the hucksters who keep power on one issue voters trying to make it so. There is nothing ethical about the government inserting itself between women and their physicians regarding medical decisions like abortion.

That is the standard pro-choice talking points. But avoids the issue that society has always inserted itself when one human ends the life of another human. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don’t know. I’ve never heard of this group before, and where I live, this hasn’t been a major topic. I am a fan of asking questions directly of people and not just floating them on internet sites. 

It is a group that has been occasionally discussed on this site. If you read about them on their web site, it certainly appears that they began with some highly professional women. Unfortunately, instead of just continuing with their intense dislike, maybe hatred, of President Trump, they appear to have evolved into a Left-leaning political action group that touts they actually represent Mormon women. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I guess if you don't see that, it might be hard explain but I will try. Ethical governments should protect life. Ethical governments should not cheer laws that strip protections for the unborn. A lds group should support the church's stance on abortion. From lds.org.

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services. (Italics and Bold mine)

The New York law stripped these protections out of their state laws. I would have thought this group of lds women would have made a statement about this issue. Personally, I am curious to know what they would say. 

Bsjkki raises a fair point. In the last few days we have seen two governors cavalierly ruminating about the theoretical infanticide of a full-term baby as though it were merely an extension of “a woman’s right to choose.” That is nothing short of horrific. If that is not a serious enough subject to draw the attention of  a group touting itself as a watchdog for “ethical government” and doing it under a self-styled “Mormon” label, then what is? Not a temporary and partial suspension of government agencies, surely, and not accusations devoid of substance against a SCOTUS nominee. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is a group that has been occasionally discussed on this site. If you read about them on their web site, it certainly appears that they began with some highly professional women. Unfortunately, instead of just continuing with their intense dislike, maybe hatred, of President Trump, they appear to have evolved into a Left-leaning political action group that touts they actually represent Mormon women. 

Sadly, I must acknowledge it is appears that way to me as well. 

[Anijen]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am bothered by the possibility that assaulting a pregnant woman with the intent to cause a miscarriage might not be able to be charged as a crime, but if it can't, a criminal law dealing specifically with that could be written.

Hi Calm.  I agree, It is shocking how we have devolved into thinking abortion outside the womb would be condoned.

Here are some legal terms that might help us all understand the legalese:

For the crime of assault you need to purposely, meaning with intent, put someone in a state of fear, (no contact is necessary to have an assault, being placed in a state of fear is enough). The victim would show a reasonable apprehension that they would be harmed. Here, I do not think it would qualify as an assault because the pregnant mother voluntarily placed herself in the position of having an abortion.

Battery is defined by an intent to commit the act of using non-consensual harmful or offensive contact.  Again here, the mother volunteering for the abortion would take away the needed element of non-consent.

"Murder" is defined as the killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. In the decision Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court made the argument that a baby inside the womb is not yet "human" until born. Thus, the Court avoided the murder charge when an abortion takes place because the baby, legally, is not yet human. However, this will cause some redefining now. If some states passed laws for abortion after the baby is born. I think what will be argued is that it will not be considered an abortion but viewed like unplugging someone from life support. i.e. the baby is born made comfortable and warm but nothing else, eventually the baby dies.

My opinion; killing a baby inside the womb is killing (even at the zygote stage). It is wrong and IMO there is no justification of allowing a baby to be killed before it is born let alone after it is born.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) did not produce a statement standing up for pro-life policies. They had a statement on the government shutdown but stayed silent on the abortion debates happening in many states. Disappointing. 

 

I follow them on FB. I have never seen them support anything but liberal positions. It is not that they aren't doing a good thing, I just think they should be more honest about their bias rather than leaning on the word "ethical" to avoid addressing their political leanings.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

New York’s law does not define “health.”

“New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

They have made getting a late term abortion as easy as getting your medical marijuana prescription.

It seems to be aimed at protecting doctors. I was discussing this today and we were all wondering how, after waiting that long, would killing a child who could survive on its own, change anything for the mother's health. The child would still need to be delivered. Then it dawned on me that these babies wouldn't be delivered and then allowed to die, "kept comfortable" as I read. They would most certainly be killed in the womb so that wouldn't happen. I don't get into abortion debates, I think it is up to the mother...to a point. But this is infanticide no matter how it is presented. Fortunately, I understand the incidence of these situations is extremely low. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I follow them on FB. I have never seen them support anything but liberal positions. It is not that they aren't doing a good thing, I just think they should be more honest about their bias rather than leaning on the word "ethical" to avoid addressing their political leanings.

Or appropriating the word “Mormon” as though all members of the Church could be expected to agree with their politics. To me, it is akin to those who errantly declare that one cannot be a good member of the Church and a Democrat at the same time.