Jump to content
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Do you believe government should set any limits on abortion? 

Sure. Fetal viability seems like a reasonable one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

The scriptures don't consider a fetus to be a "living human being." And apparently the church doesn't either, or it wouldn't allow for abortion in the case of rape.

If one were really interested in reducing abortions, the most obvious step would be to increase availability of contraception and the morning after pill. Or to encourage abortion in the first 14 days or so  after conception if at all (rather than trying to take steps to get women to delay), before any of the cells that eventually become a human being are formed (the "primitive streak").

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours 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. 

How could an ethical group not agree and support such a deeply ethical man? It is a mystery.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

Sure. Fetal viability seems like a reasonable one.

And this is why people are upset with what New York did. Fetal viability is now 22 weeks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Some people find the killing of innocent babies unethical......i know it's hard for some to understand this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

The scriptures don't consider a fetus to be a "living human being."

Really?!?

 

Jerermiah 1: [5] Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How could an ethical group not agree and support such a deeply ethical man? It is a mystery.

They supposedly are about issues not party. Protecting life should be a bipartisan issue. From their mission statement.

“3. Ensure that laws, regulations, policies, and government actors protect the dignity and fundamental human rights of all God’s children

Before taking a particular position on an issue that falls within the advocacy guidelines described above, we educate ourselves thoroughly on the matter (paying particular attention to the credibility of information sources), consider reasonable arguments on all sides, seek out the perspectives of people most affected, and prayerfully evaluate whether our commitment as disciples of Jesus Christ compels us to act.”

Matbe they are still studying the issue? Maybe they will feel compelled to act in a few more days. I hope so. It is shocking a man like Trump will stand up for life and a LDS political advocacy group stays silent.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Some people find the killing of innocent babies unethical......i know it's hard for some to understand this.

Good thing abortion has nothing to do with killing babies then.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Really?!?

 

Jerermiah 1: [5] Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.

 

A responsible eisegesis of that passage would be in reference to the foreknowledge of God. Mosiac law treated the fetus as the property of the mother, not as a human being. In ancient understanding, life was in the breath. Life couldn't begin until the baby was born and took his or her first breath.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They supposedly are about issues not party. Protecting life should be a bipartisan issue. From their mission statement.

“3. Ensure that laws, regulations, policies, and government actors protect the dignity and fundamental human rights of all God’s children

Before taking a particular position on an issue that falls within the advocacy guidelines described above, we educate ourselves thoroughly on the matter (paying particular attention to the credibility of information sources), consider reasonable arguments on all sides, seek out the perspectives of people most affected, and prayerfully evaluate whether our commitment as disciples of Jesus Christ compels us to act.”

Matbe they are still studying the issue? Maybe they will feel compelled to act in a few more days. I hope so. It is shocking a man like Trump will stand up for life and a LDS political advocacy group stays silent.

Maybe not everyone agrees with your personal interpretation that an embryo is the same thing as a baby. The church certainly doesn't agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And this is why people are upset with what New York did. Fetal viability is now 22 weeks. 

Believe it or not there are valid medical reasons to abort after that time - for instance, the imminent death of the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Gray said:

Believe it or not there are valid medical reasons to abort after that time - for instance, the imminent death of the fetus.

If the fetus is about to die, why would it be medically necessary to kill it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

If the fetus is about to die, why would it be medically necessary to kill it?

If it's threatening the life of the mother, for instance. Not all fetuses are viable at any given point in development.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Gray said:

If it's threatening the life of the mother, for instance. Not all fetuses are viable at any given point in development.

These laws are changing the laws from “life of the mother” to “health of the mother.” This lowers the bar for getting a late term abortion immensely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

These laws are changing the laws from “life of the mother” to “health of the mother.” This lowers the bar for getting a late term abortion immensely.

Heaven forbid women and their physicians council together to make hard decisions about health matters. Men should probably get involved and put a stop to it.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They supposedly are about issues not party. Protecting life should be a bipartisan issue. From their mission statement.

“3. Ensure that laws, regulations, policies, and government actors protect the dignity and fundamental human rights of all God’s children

Before taking a particular position on an issue that falls within the advocacy guidelines described above, we educate ourselves thoroughly on the matter (paying particular attention to the credibility of information sources), consider reasonable arguments on all sides, seek out the perspectives of people most affected, and prayerfully evaluate whether our commitment as disciples of Jesus Christ compels us to act.”

Matbe they are still studying the issue? Maybe they will feel compelled to act in a few more days. I hope so. It is shocking a man like Trump will stand up for life and a LDS political advocacy group stays silent.

Trump stands up for life when he thinks it will win him accolades and applause but has concretely done nothing on the issue and was ardently pro choice for most of his life. Would anyone be genuinely surprised to find out he has paid for an abortion or two for some of the many women he has committed adultery with? Remember back in 2016 where in the period of a week he took something like half a dozen different stances on abortion?

I hear this organization has also have not publicly taken a position on child pornography. What are they hiding? Are they running or supporting a pedophilia sex ring out of the basement of a pizza place? 

Silence is not acquiescence or agreement. It says more about those who are looking for cause to bash the organization then it does the organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

So the medical reason is that the life of the mother is at stake, not that the baby is not viable, like you said.    But still, in late term abortions (which is the topic that bjs is talking about), if the mother's life is at stake, why would killing the fetus be medically necessary when it could instead be delivered?  

I know quite a few women who's life has been at stake late in their pregnancy, and none of them had to abort their baby to save their lives.  They did have to induce labor early, and the baby did not always survive, but with the ones I am personally aware of, the baby survived more times than not.

Cases where this would threaten the life of the mother are relatively rare but they do happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe not everyone agrees with your personal interpretation that an embryo is the same thing as a baby. The church certainly doesn't agree with you.

I think my views are more in line with church teachings than what you are implying the church believes based on the quote by President Nelson I already posted. Here is a quote by President Oaks from his October 2018 conference talk. 

“Third, mortal life is sacred to us. Our commitment to God’s plan requires us to oppose abortion and euthanasia.”

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Gray...A semantics issue but one that I’m curious about, not looking for debate but understanding of the other side:

i hear that some people believe life occurs at first breath.  They say there is not life in the womb.  Of course what is in the womb we all must agree is living, because it moves at will and grows .  I assume pro lifers see this figure somewhere between a plant and a person, a plant grows but this figure has blood and digestion. Is this anywhere near accurate? 

If life is at breath, what is different about the figure at breath vs in the womb? Is it soul? 

Is life synonymous with having a soul?

I will only thank you for your answer and not try to debate. 

 

That said,  I don’t think we can know what MWEGs position is until they say one way or another. 

Edited by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think my views are more in line with church teachings than what you are implying the church believes based on the quote by President Nelson I already posted. Here is a quote by President Oaks from his October 2018 conference talk. 

“Third, mortal life is sacred to us. Our commitment to God’s plan requires us to oppose abortion and euthanasia.”

Yes, and if there were legislation to limit abortion to the relatively rare cases the church allows I would support that legislation. If there was legislation requiring a complete ban in all cases I would oppose it.

The best way to do this is to reenthrone life’s value as a central principle. I am not convinced we are doing that now. I watch the same people who insist that abortion is sin cut funding for abused and neglected children and wonder how they can still imagine themselves to be champions of life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Silence is not acquiescence or agreement. 

Silence on this issue by this group speaks volumes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, and if there were legislation to limit abortion to the relatively rare cases the church allows I would support that legislation. If there was legislation requiring a complete ban in all cases I would oppose it.

The best way to do this is to reenthrone life’s value as a central principle. I am not convinced we are doing that now. I watch the same people who insist that abortion is sin cut funding for abused and neglected children and wonder how they can still imagine themselves to be champions of life.

I agree that public policies should incentivize life. I would support those policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

. I watch the same people who insist that abortion is sin cut funding for abused and neglected children and wonder how they can still imagine themselves to be champions of life.

Changed my mind. Off topic. 

Edited by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Silence on this issue by this group speaks volumes. 

From what I have seen this group mostly focuses on the federal level and general issues like climate change and overseas famines. It would be more odd if they did speak out on one singular specific state issue.

So, no, it does not speak volumes unless someone has itching ears and really want it to say that but that says more about them then the organization.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×