Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

If I ask my two year old grandson what is in her moms pregnant belly? He will answer, my baby sister. Almost everybody knows what is in the womb.

I believe there is no difference between the embryo and the adult that would justify it being killed. Is killing you at an earlier stage justified rather than killing you at an older, say adult stage? Are differences in size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency good reasons to kill then, but not now?

Do you think hurting people because of their skin color or gender is okay? I hope not. Why is it then okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location? Or are you practicing selective prejudicism? Abortion is the worst form of discrimination against the less developed, the smallest, those who cannot protect themselves.

 

A cystoblast is still life. I was once a mass of cells, killing me then is just as wrong as killing me now. Both are killing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

If I ask my two year old grandson what is in her moms pregnant belly? He will answer, my baby sister. Almost everybody knows what is in the womb.

I believe there is no difference between the embryo and the adult that would justify it being killed. Is killing you at an earlier stage justified rather than killing you at an older, say adult stage? Are differences in size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency good reasons to kill then, but not now?

Do you think hurting people because of their skin color or gender is okay? I hope not. Why is it then okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location? Or are you practicing selective prejudicism? Abortion is the worst form of discrimination against the less developed, the smallest, those who cannot protect themselves.

 

A cystoblast is still life. I was once a mass of cells, killing me then is just as wrong as killing me now. Both are killing.

The despicable remarks by the Virginia governor of several days ago brings this into stark relief. Having a “discussion” about whether a fully formed and delivered infant is to be allowed to live? Is this what we as a society have become? 

And there is far more outrage over the possibility this guy appeared in black face or in a Klan costume in his medical school yearbook. Mark Stein, the political pundit, aptly summarized the matter the other day: They don’t care if a doctor, after “discussion” with the mother, kills a baby. They just don’t want him singing “Mammy” while he’s doing it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting that we will pay millions to divert highways so that a certain endangered species will not be harmed. We will create nature areas for all manner of life to have a place to habitat. We will legislate into laws that when a deer leaves a National Park and goes on to private land, that same deer receives all the protections from it being hunted. 

I have fought against all manner of child abuse and prosecuted those who are guilty of it. I contribute money to charities specifically made for children. I ask my government, on every level, to legislate for the wellbeing and protection of our children. I help educate these children by teaching in the school systems. 

Why would I not for the unborn? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, snowflake said:

“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27)

“Be fertile and multiply” (Genesis 1:28)

“Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.” (Genesis 16:11)

“And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive. But the children struggled in her womb…” (Genesis 25:21-22)

“In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God.” (Hosea 12:3)

“But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand) . . .” (Romans 9:10-11)

“Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3)

“You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15)

 “You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11).

“God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace” (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15)

“They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed” (Psalm 106:35, 37-38)

“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17)

“Do unto others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12)

One can certainly use those as a general principle to support your view, but nothing there specifically applies to the topic at hand. We do know from Mosaic law that if a man injured a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry, he would have to pay a fine, as for property damage. Only if the woman died would he be in trouble for murder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Anijen said:

To me life is more precious than how the words label them.

That's fine, but most people don't confuse a baby with a blastocyst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Snowflake is referring to state laws that charge someone (besides the mother usually) who kills a fetus with murder, the same thing they would be charged with if the baby had already been born.  It's one of the weird ways that some U.S. laws are sexist.  A mother is allowed to decide to kill her fetus with no repercussions but if the father decided to do it, then in many states he would go to prison. 

 

Yes, those are pro-birth activists trying to sneak their agenda into US law, despite women having a constitutional right to autonomy over their own bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

fetus

 noun
fe·tus | \ ˈfē-təs  \

Definition of fetus

 

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kindspecifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
 

fetus

 [fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from thethird month after fertilization until birth.

Yes, and?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Everyone and I mean everyone knows that a fetus turns into a baby.....ask any physician, biologist or parent. 

Everyone and I mean everyone knows that a sperm and an egg turn into a baby too. Therefore menstruation is halfway to murder?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Gray said:

most people don't confuse a baby with a blastocyst.

And neither do I. I am making the distinction that both are life.

Edited by Anijen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to clarify that a baby within a womb is not a woman's body. The baby, has his/her own body, inside the host of another body.

I reject the silly idea that life starts when the baby draws its first breath outside the womb. The baby is already receiving its oxygen, drawing its breath already via oxygenated blood through the umbilical cord.

In regard to scriptural support, I would suggest that when the baby jumped within the womb when Elizabeth and Mary were together in the recognition of the Savior that there is an implied scriptural support of life inside the womb.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I would like to clarify that a baby within a womb is not a woman's body. The baby, has his/her own body, inside the host of another body.

I reject the silly idea that life starts when the baby draws its first breath outside the womb. The baby is already receiving its oxygen, drawing its breath already via oxygenated blood through the umbilical cord.

In regard to scriptural support, I would suggest that when the baby jumped within the womb when Elizabeth and Mary were together in the recognition of the Savior that there is an implied scriptural support of life inside the womb.

1

This conversation is meaningless. You have those who have drunk the cool-aid and it does not matter what is said, they worship at the altar of a woman's right to choose whatever happens to her body; she owns her body. They blindly ignore the presence of separate life - a being distinctly different from her own cells - because, well dang it, that child is in her womb. That demonstrates how utterly blind they are. They can acknowledge a woman has a womb to nurture another being, but should a new being entered therein, it is damned to a woman's choice. Not it's own choice; it cannot have a protector, it is an it, a thing, to be accepted or rejected at the will of the mother. Why? It is inconvenient, a bother, a nuisance. Further, it completely ignores the fact that two people chose to engage in an action that may result in the development of a child, a separate being. The choice was made - that is a woman's and a man's choice. After that choice is made both individuals bear the consequences. Unfortunately, the only one that legally can choose again is the prospective mother to the complete danger to the child and the financial obligation of the father. 

The scales are too think on their eyes. The discussion goes nowhere until another time when they can both see and hear. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Anijen said:

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.

Actually I was referring to the moving of abortion to a medical issue rather than a criminal one and the possible implication that actual assualt could therefore only be brought on behalf of the woman if a man attacked her without her consent (as in physically beating her up, stabbing her in the stomach, etc) to end her pregnancy. There was some discussion how it now being a medical issue now prevents charging such attacks as criminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Yes....those Floridians...idiot judges.....don't know the difference between a fetus and a baby.........not nearly as educated as us! LOL! 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just want to say that everyone's doing a great job, and I think this thread will finally be the moment where we come up with society's first ethically consistent, totally logical view on abortion, where everyone will be forced by the strength of the ethical, moral, legal and scientific arguments to agree on a single, unified view that solves all contradictions.

I can't contribute anything to the conversation, but I just want to be able to tell my grandkids I was here when it happened.

We should sterilize everyone to make sure no human life is created that might die in the womb either through human intervention or through natural processes.

We should also figure out which people alive today should have been aborted and correct that error as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

The sad thing is, some politicians are justifying Infanticide.  That is killing the child AFTER it is born.

 

IMHO that is no longer abortion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, juliann said:

A critique of MWEG and their distinction between morals and ethics (which probably explains their silence on this.)

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleHudsonMormonWomenEthicalGov.html

Very interesting read. Thank you Juliann!  Two quotes from  the article/author as she is quoting MWEG, "“We have since made this further distinction: For MWEG, ethics and morality are not the same thing. Morality deals with questions of right and wrong while ethics deals with what is just and unjust. At MWEG, we are not in the business of debating morality, just ethics and legality.” As a result, the words “morality” and “moral” appear nowhere on the MWEG website."

"Consider what MWEG has decided (correspondence, March 14): “LGBT discrimination issues will fall under the umbrella of the Discrimination committee. Because of the nature/mission/focus of MWEG, we will not deal with any issues surrounding gay marriage, pro or con. The general topics of women’s health and contraception fall under the umbrella of the Heath committee. Because of the nature/mission/focus of MWEG, we will not deal with any issues surrounding abortion, pro or con.”"

I now see why they will not address the abortion debate. It's a moral issue, not ethical issue. SMH

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The sad thing is, some politicians are justifying Infanticide.  That is killing the child AFTER it is born.

 

IMHO that is no longer abortion.

One idiot said one idiot thing. Then a group of idios decided to propose an anti-infanticide bill to make illegal something that is already illegal.

So the idiot faithful are riled up and some idiots are tricked into thinking something is happening. Idiots on the other side imagine pro choice itself is under attack and idiotically retaliate.

 

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Anijen said:

If I ask my two year old grandson what is in her moms pregnant belly? He will answer, my baby sister. Almost everybody knows what is in the womb.

I believe there is no difference between the embryo and the adult that would justify it being killed. Is killing you at an earlier stage justified rather than killing you at an older, say adult stage? Are differences in size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency good reasons to kill then, but not now?

Do you think hurting people because of their skin color or gender is okay? I hope not. Why is it then okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location? Or are you practicing selective prejudicism? Abortion is the worst form of discrimination against the less developed, the smallest, those who cannot protect themselves.

 

A cystoblast is still life. I was once a mass of cells, killing me then is just as wrong as killing me now. Both are killing.

From my post above:

You are in a fertility clinic on fire. There is a six month old baby in next to a freezer that contains 1000 human embryos. There is only time to take one or the other. Which do you choose? How many embryos would it take before you would take the fridge over the baby? 

What if your beloved family dog was unconscious by the freezer? Which would you take?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

On the opposite side of the abortion debate if you do have an abortion you will not get sued for bringing a child into this world without their permission:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2019/feb/05/consent-being-born-man-suing-parents-for-giving-birth-to-him

I saw that the other day.  That guy (and his groupies) is an idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I missed MWEG's FAQs page and they had this statement. 

Are there any issues you do not discuss or engage with?

After significant prayerful deliberation, as an organization we have specifically chosen not to engage with the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. While we acknowledge the strong emotional and moral pull both these issues provoke, this pull has been consistently manipulated by both major political parties to divide the electorate, create animosity among fellow citizens, and shield politicians from a focused analysis of their broader policy records.

By creating single-issue litmus tests, our political parties have excluded well-qualified and thoughtful individuals from participating in the political process, driven discussion away from the center, and avoided accountability for a wide range of complex policy issues before our nation. Politicians on both sides have manipulated emotions surrounding these issues to retain power when an otherwise careful analysis of their political competence or ethical behavior would suggest their removal. Finally, to focus on one social issue above all others (regardless of its importance) can itself be construed as unethical.

Mormon Women for Ethical Government is dedicated to restoring civility and productivity to government. As a young and rapidly growing organization we have determined that our best course of action is to set aside these highly emotional wedge issues while we establish a public space of respect, open discussion, and purposeful engagement. We encourage all members to engage with other organizations dedicated to these important policy matters as their conscience dictates.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I saw that the other day.  That guy (and his groupies) is an idiot.

On the bright side their philosophy is unlikely to propagate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...