Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

7 hours 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

Great article! I am grateful to the author that they did in-depth research on MWEG and then made their own criticims based on facts. In agreement with the author, I am having a very difficult time with MWEG's decision to separate ethics from morality. Stating that a Jesuit University's team of professors wrote an article supporting such a position does not cut it. I remain flummoxed why they use the term "Mormon" to describe their group. Why? They don't act like LDS members; they support very little that Mormons would support as a whole. 

I again agree with the author, V. H. Cassler, I am just sad that MWEG fails on so many levels. They shy away from the major issues and nibble around them. They could be a force for good, but it seems like they are weakness incarnate. Very sad indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Great article! I am grateful to the author that they did in-depth research on MWEG and then made their own criticims based on facts. In agreement with the author, I am having a very difficult time with MWEG's decision to separate ethics from morality. Stating that a Jesuit University's team of professors wrote an article supporting such a position does not cut it. I remain flummoxed why they use the term "Mormon" to describe their group. Why? They don't act like LDS members; they support very little that Mormons would support as a whole. 

I again agree with the author, V. H. Cassler, I am just sad that MWEG fails on so many levels. They shy away from the major issues and nibble around them. They could be a force for good, but it seems like they are weakness incarnate. Very sad indeed.

I don’t see them as weak so much as a left-of-center political pressure group trading on the “Mormon” brand. 

Why would a Latter-day Saint group purporting to promote “ethical” government not take a vociferous advocacy position for religious freedom unless they found it ideologically unpalatable to do so?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see them as weak so much as a left-of-center political pressure group trading on the “Mormon” brand. 

Why would a Latter-day Saint group purporting to promote “ethical” government not take a vociferous advocacy position for religious freedom unless they found it ideologically unpalatable to do so?

I find them to be weak because they shy away from the most significant issues of today. As you stated, they state they represent a group of individuals related to a religious cause, yet they are devoid of all thought when it comes to religious freedom. Then they cannot even sound a peep about abortion, not a peep, because they think it is a divisive issue? Come again? How can you be any more weak than what they display as their causes?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours 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.

 

Many times something leaps inside me, sometimes as a result, it seems, from different exciting or drastic things that are happening around me.  But as it turns out months later I'm not delivering a baby.  I wonder how many baby's have been killed inside me because there is no escape route after they jumped inside me? 

The cute thing about the story in the NT about John leaping in the womb is it comes off as after-the-fact excitable addition.  Some many decades later an anonymous author writes down a cute story of a fetus getting excited in the presence of a lady who, after all these decades, became in the eyes of some someone who was larger than life.  It wasn't Elizabeth who tells the story of course, and the story itself comes off as if Elizabeth didn't report the incident, as if it was reported by some revelatory story rendering.  One wonders if it was the first time the fetus moved or if it even happened as described.  Fetus' often move inside the woman, so I don't know why this should be considered exciting or monumental or definitive.  Afterall, everyone who has fought for abortion rights knew that fetus' move inside the womb.  

With that said, I imagine there's nothing like a fetus moving around inside a mommy, especially for the first time. It was exciting enough for me to feel the movement as a daddy.  I'm not big on debating abortion.  I feel lucky Ive never been faced with carrying a fetus. I'm not coming out as pro or con.  Just pointing out that while one side complains of murder when t comes to abortion the other assumes it's not murder.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Fair enough, as long as you stop equivocating the medical need for an emergency delivery or C-section with the medical need for a late-term abortion.

Edited by jpv

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Anijen said:

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

I know I mourn every time one of my skin cells dies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I find them to be weak because they shy away from the most significant issues of today. As you stated, they state they represent a group of individuals related to a religious cause, yet they are devoid of all thought when it comes to religious freedom. Then they cannot even sound a peep about abortion, not a peep, because they think it is a divisive issue? Come again? How can you be any more weak than what they display as their causes?

Are you doing more then them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2019 at 7:36 PM, 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 agree with something Nehor mentioned around the general focus of MWEG. I've been hesitant to discuss things on the abortion threads. But I hope my perspective may be helpful I generally agree with MWEG....and I tend to be fairly liberal leaning. On this issue, I don't think I lean heavily one way or the other, though.

 I think part of the problem is to assume that pro-life poilcies are the only version for ethical congruence to LDS beliefs. I don't think that's necessarily true....I've found problems in purely pro-life or pro-choice argument, personally. Also I know that you see a drastic difference between the language of the New York law and the church policy...but to me I don't see much of a difference. It's on the assumption that this will open the flood gates to completely elective abortions at any point. But this is speculation and assumption.  

 

And both sides of this discussion are working under a limited amount of information about those who are actually receiving later term abortion. I notice that for those claiming infanticide, that there isn't much grounded fact of what actually is happening in these cases, but potentials and hypotheticals and the assumption that they're aborting a perfectly healthy child. Is it hypothetically possible that a woman decided willy-nilly to abort her  healthy baby at 35 weeks by feigning depression? Really really technically, (i think?) but there are medical, financial, and realistic barriers to such a thing ever occurring. I've been trying to find stories of women who have had pretty late term abortions.  They're hard to find, some of them seem questionable or come from anonymous sources, and based on the ones I do find, it's likely that many women who have this procedure don't want to revisit the experience (example here).The latest I could find was 32 weeks. All of them come from sources with advocacy bias....but they at least have names or photos and seem to be legitimate sources. All of the ones I found were for serious medical problems. The 32 week story answers a question of who would go for an abortion when they could still just give birth:

Quote

I was already going to have to have a C-section no matter what, because two years ago, I’d had brain surgery. And my doctor checked with the neurosurgeon, who wouldn’t sign off on a natural birth. They were afraid that if I pushed, something might go on in my head, so the delivery had to be a C-section. And so we were considering putting me through major abdominal surgery for a baby that’s not going to make it, or risking that I go into natural labor and something pops in my head and I die, basically.

To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.

 

I'm 23 weeks pregnant and can feel my child move and squirm and kick all over. I watch a video of her moving and sucking her little fist and count the digits of her toes and fingers over and over again. The vast majority of women who are at the point of viability aren't likely to even contemplate abortion without extreme circumstances in the way. How do I ethically dice her story? I honestly don't know what I would do in her situation. Or other women placed between a rock and a hard place....where each decision is likely not the one they would have initially wanted.

On ethics, as I mentioned the policy by the church lends space for people who may not subscribe to a wholly pro-life model. Like myself. THough I don't view myself as "pro-choice" per se either. My viewpoint is more about privately promoting my values, giving space within reason to those who choose/see differently, and trying to ground my positions on actual facts rather than partisan talking points/hyperbole. The ethical standard for me is based on several values and what causes the least impact or danger to women's lives...while balancing what I view as the sacred nature of life. My conclusions are likely to differ a bit from yours or others on this board. But it does not mean that mine is more or less ethically based. Insisting that my way is right and that MWEG should adopt it would also negate what I see as them trying (i'm not saying they always succeed) to have a collaborative and non-partisan position.

Asking MWEG to pull in on an issue that is definitely partisan is like asking them why they can't take a pro-life stance and condemn the death penalty as unethical, to me. You can make an argument that the death penalty is unethical....but the reasoning will inevitably be biased by one's one perspective, beliefs, and values that one's insisting is the only ethically correct option. As opposed to actually finding common ground to promote. 

 

this may be a little disjointed....I wrote over two days and have no time to edit it.

With luv,

BD 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/6/2019 at 7:43 AM, Gray said:

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.

babies breath in the womb. Have never watched an ultrasound? 

They are alive and have their own personalities.  

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I agree with something Nehor mentioned around the general focus of MWEG. I've been hesitant to discuss things on the abortion threads. But I hope my perspective may be helpful I generally agree with MWEG....and I tend to be fairly liberal leaning. On this issue, I don't think I lean heavily one way or the other, though.

 I think part of the problem is to assume that pro-life poilcies are the only version for ethical congruence to LDS beliefs. I don't think that's necessarily true....I've found problems in purely pro-life or pro-choice argument, personally. Also I know that you see a drastic difference between the language of the New York law and the church policy...but to me I don't see much of a difference. It's on the assumption that this will open the flood gates to completely elective abortions at any point. But this is speculation and assumption.  

 

And both sides of this discussion are working under a limited amount of information about those who are actually receiving later term abortion. I notice that for those claiming infanticide, that there isn't much grounded fact of what actually is happening in these cases, but potentials and hypotheticals and the assumption that they're aborting a perfectly healthy child. Is it hypothetically possible that a woman decided willy-nilly to abort her  healthy baby at 35 weeks by feigning depression? Really really technically, (i think?) but there are medical, financial, and realistic barriers to such a thing ever occurring. I've been trying to find stories of women who have had pretty late term abortions.  They're hard to find, some of them seem questionable or come from anonymous sources, and based on the ones I do find, it's likely that many women who have this procedure don't want to revisit the experience (example here).The latest I could find was 32 weeks. All of them come from sources with advocacy bias....but they at least have names or photos and seem to be legitimate sources. All of the ones I found were for serious medical problems. The 32 week story answers a question of who would go for an abortion when they could still just give birth:

 

I'm 23 weeks pregnant and can feel my child move and squirm and kick all over. I watch a video of her moving and sucking her little fist and count the digits of her toes and fingers over and over again. The vast majority of women who are at the point of viability aren't likely to even contemplate abortion without extreme circumstances in the way. How do I ethically dice her story? I honestly don't know what I would do in her situation. Or other women placed between a rock and a hard place....where each decision is likely not the one they would have initially wanted.

On ethics, as I mentioned the policy by the church lends space for people who may not subscribe to a wholly pro-life model. Like myself. THough I don't view myself as "pro-choice" per se either. My viewpoint is more about privately promoting my values, giving space within reason to those who choose/see differently, and trying to ground my positions on actual facts rather than partisan talking points/hyperbole. The ethical standard for me is based on several values and what causes the least impact or danger to women's lives...while balancing what I view as the sacred nature of life. My conclusions are likely to differ a bit from yours or others on this board. But it does not mean that mine is more or less ethically based. Insisting that my way is right and that MWEG should adopt it would also negate what I see as them trying (i'm not saying they always succeed) to have a collaborative and non-partisan position.

Asking MWEG to pull in on an issue that is definitely partisan is like asking them why they can't take a pro-life stance and condemn the death penalty as unethical, to me. You can make an argument that the death penalty is unethical....but the reasoning will inevitably be biased by one's one perspective, beliefs, and values that one's insisting is the only ethically correct option. As opposed to actually finding common ground to promote. 

 

this may be a little disjointed....I wrote over two days and have no time to edit it.

With luv,

BD 

 

 

I view MWEF as a left leaning partisan organization no matter what they call themselves. They have since changed their FAQs page but this was quoted in the posted critique. “ MWEG answers, “Well, you’ll never hear us say that outright, but it would be disingenuous of us to pretend that we are not part of the resistance. Like millions of Americans, we are aghast at the current state of affairs in our great nation. We refuse to normalize or accept behavior, rhetoric, or legislation that disregards the rule of law, the core principles of decency and honor, and basic human rights.” (https://www.mormonwomenforethicalgovernment.org/faqs/ ; accessed 5 April 2017)

 

Share this post


Link to post

There is no evidence to suggest most late term abortions are due to fetal viability or the life of the mother. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

What percentage of women getting later abortions are doing it to protect their own health or life or because of a fetal abnormality?

Congressional Research Service reportpublished in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”

Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated. (Bold mine)

What are other reasons women are getting later abortions?

In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

 
Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: “They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].”

Kimport, a medical sociologist at UCSF whose research focuses on gender, sexuality and social movements, followed up on the research in 2018 with 28 new interviews of women who got later abortions. She said about half were lacking critical health information about their fetus earlier in their pregnancy. Kimport described in an interview how one woman was told by her doctors that something in her 20-week scan looked suspicious but it wasn’t until 24 weeks that it was clear the fetus had significant abnormalities.

The other half of the women had challenges finding a provider, getting necessary approvals from doctors in states that require them, or had financial constraints. All the women in the study traveled to other states to get the procedure done.

“These are people who wanted an early abortion and tried to get one but were unable to do so because of the substantial obstacles that were placed in their path,” Kimport said.”

I do not believe abortion should be illegal in all cases but I find  laws that enable the procedure with a low legal hurdle to be unethical and immoral and not in line with church teachings or the teachings of our current Prophet or Apostles.

 

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2019 at 9:36 PM, 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'm wondering how anyone in the US expects to escape the judgments coming in the last days.

If murdering alive, delivered babies doesn't cause the slightest tinge of conscience, what chance to missionaries have at successfully sharing the gospel?  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm 23 weeks pregnant and can feel my child move and squirm and kick all over. I watch a video of her moving and sucking her little fist and count the digits of her toes and fingers over and over again. 

 

 

congrats.   

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I agree with something Nehor mentioned around the general focus of MWEG. I've been hesitant to discuss things on the abortion threads. But I hope my perspective may be helpful I generally agree with MWEG....and I tend to be fairly liberal leaning. On this issue, I don't think I lean heavily one way or the other, though.

 I think part of the problem is to assume that pro-life poilcies are the only version for ethical congruence to LDS beliefs. I don't think that's necessarily true....I've found problems in purely pro-life or pro-choice.  .....

On ethics, as I mentioned the policy by the church lends space for people who may not subscribe to a wholly pro-life model. Like myself. THough I don't view myself as "pro-choice" per se either. My viewpoint is more about privately promoting my values, giving space within reason to those who choose/see differently, and trying to ground my positions on actual facts rather than partisan talking points/hyperbole. The ethical standard for me is based on several values and what causes the least impact or danger to women's lives...while balancing what I view as the sacred nature of life. My conclusions are likely to differ a bit from yours or others on this board. But it does not mean that mine is more or less ethically based. Insisting that my way is right and that MWEG should adopt it would also negate what I see as them trying (i'm not saying they always succeed) to have a collaborative and non-partisan position.

Asking MWEG to pull in on an issue that is definitely partisan is like asking them why they can't take a pro-life stance and condemn the death penalty as unethical, to me. You can make an argument that the death penalty is unethicalconstrainedbut the reasoning will inevitably be biased by one's one perspective, beliefs, and values that one's insisting is the only ethically correct option. As opposed to actually finding common ground to promote. 

 

this may be a little disjointed....I wrote over two days and have no time to edit it.

With luv,

BD 

5

The LDS position does allow for abortions, but it is highly constrained to specific situations, but even then, there is a strong emphasis to pray and be sure of the action contemplated. 

When we set ourselves up to be an advocate for ethical government and then shy away from 1) taking a stand on what is right and what is wrong, and 2) avoid some of the more significant issues of the day then what purpose is the organization? Oh, those things are divisive so we are going to talk today about flowers, and making cookies, and whatever strikes our fancy, but does cause any waves. 

I just don't get it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

talk today about flowers, and making cookies, and whatever strikes our fancy, but does cause any waves. 

They don't exactly do that either...and this strikes me as sexist. They tend to take positions on the hot button topics of the day. Immigration reform, Kavanaugh hearings, the resignation of Jess Sessions, the midterm elections, reckless rhetoric etc...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They don't exactly do that either...and this strikes me as sexist. They tend to take positions on the hot button topics of the day. Immigration reform, Kavanaugh hearings, the resignation of Jess Sessions, the midterm elections, reckless rhetoric etc...

It was intended to demean the powerful position of their own name - is that is sexist then it is sexist - my objective was to belittle. They do take on SOME hot topics - Jess Sessions is not hot; Immigration reform is very hot and ideas need to be discussed; Midterm elections - all elections - are hot; projecting civil discourse is valuable. However, tell me how you are going to be an advocate for civil discourse if you openly admit that you avoid divisive topics?  And now we come around to my comment on flowers, cookies, (Think Hillary Clinton here) etc. Being civil is hard when there are challenging topics to discuss. Choosing to avoid difficult topics is weak. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I view MWEF as a left leaning partisan organization no matter what they call themselves. They have since changed their FAQs page but this was quoted in the posted critique. “ MWEG answers, “Well, you’ll never hear us say that outright, but it would be disingenuous of us to pretend that we are not part of the resistance. Like millions of Americans, we are aghast at the current state of affairs in our great nation. We refuse to normalize or accept behavior, rhetoric, or legislation that disregards the rule of law, the core principles of decency and honor, and basic human rights.” (https://www.mormonwomenforethicalgovernment.org/faqs/ ; accessed 5 April 2017)

 

Being apart of the resistance does not necessitate specific party affiliation. The resistance does not have one specific platform and several people from both parties (and neither as well) have received nods of approval or have described themselves as apart of the resistance. Non-partisan can still fit them, even if they do have a bias and focus on specific concerns...if what they're talking about it party identity rather than ideological/causal emphasis. And it would mean having their focus on specific governing concerns could still mean that taking up abortion issues doesn't not indicate partisanship, but outside their scope of focus.

 

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

There is no evidence to suggest most late term abortions are due to fetal viability or the life of the mother. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

What percentage of women getting later abortions are doing it to protect their own health or life or because of a fetal abnormality?

Congressional Research Service reportpublished in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”

Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated. (Bold mine)

What are other reasons women are getting later abortions?

In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

 
Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: “They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].”

Kimport, a medical sociologist at UCSF whose research focuses on gender, sexuality and social movements, followed up on the research in 2018 with 28 new interviews of women who got later abortions. She said about half were lacking critical health information about their fetus earlier in their pregnancy. Kimport described in an interview how one woman was told by her doctors that something in her 20-week scan looked suspicious but it wasn’t until 24 weeks that it was clear the fetus had significant abnormalities.

The other half of the women had challenges finding a provider, getting necessary approvals from doctors in states that require them, or had financial constraints. All the women in the study traveled to other states to get the procedure done.

“These are people who wanted an early abortion and tried to get one but were unable to do so because of the substantial obstacles that were placed in their path,” Kimport said.”

I do not believe abortion should be illegal in all cases but I find  laws that enable the procedure with a low legal hurdle to be unethical and immoral and not in line with church teachings or the teachings of our current Prophet or Apostles.

The report still doesn't necessitate or even warrant a solely pro-life ethos to address concerns. For example one could note that one of the major concerns that increase medically unnecessary abortion post 20 weeks are issues of access, education, etc. Ironically, by increasing early abortion access, it would likely decrease post 20 weeks abortions. In a sense pro-life ethos and repression of early abortion access may be increasing, not decreasing, late-term abortions. One could also point to broader policies that would protect vulnerable populations and increase sex education as a means to reduce abortion rates period. This is based on what you quoted solely, but to me a pro-life stance is again not the only ethical methodology or structure.....and a purely pro-life ethos would disagree with your own last states that you do not believe  abortion should be illegal in all cases. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The LDS position does allow for abortions, but it is highly constrained to specific situations, but even then, there is a strong emphasis to pray and be sure of the action contemplated. 

When we set ourselves up to be an advocate for ethical government and then shy away from 1) taking a stand on what is right and what is wrong, and 2) avoid some of the more significant issues of the day then what purpose is the organization? Oh, those things are divisive so we are going to talk today about flowers, and making cookies, and whatever strikes our fancy, but does cause any waves. 

I just don't get it. 

I agree with Bsjkki's assertion that your end comment veers sexist. Sexism to criticize is still inappropriate and still sexism IMO.

 On your first comment this again, is not purely a pro-life ethos. Purely pro-life often advocate for keeping babies that the LDS position may give leeway to abort. I'm not saying the church would follow a purely pro-choice ethos as well, BTW. 

As for ethical government and raising issues, my guess is that it's about limiting focus to maximize effect towards their broader goals. No one can cover every last issue/national concern effectively....most advocates have to focus on specific concerns or themes to place their efforts in. 

 

With luv,

BD

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Another point to why they are not covering abortion can be found on their intro to their group page on FB: 

Quote

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.

They have a similar statement towards gay marriage. 

As a personal decision, I've decided to join MWEG. 1) because I do not like talking about a group that I know little about. 2) because, as I mentioned, I generally agree with their premise and focus . I may change my mind later....but I want to be informed by my own personal experience instead of relying on the assertions and perspectives of others.

 

With luv,

BD 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

congrats.   

thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The report still doesn't necessitate or even warrant a solely pro-life ethos to address concerns. For example one could note that one of the major concerns that increase medically unnecessary abortion post 20 weeks are issues of access, education, etc. Ironically, by increasing early abortion access, it would likely decrease post 20 weeks abortions. In a sense pro-life ethos and repression of early abortion access may be increasing, not decreasing, late-term abortions. One could also point to broader policies that would protect vulnerable populations and increase sex education as a means to reduce abortion rates period. This is based on what you quoted solely, but to me a pro-life stance is again not the only ethical methodology or structure.....and a purely pro-life ethos would disagree with your own last states that you do not believe  abortion should be illegal in all cases. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I've never said it did. I have never said I am solely pro-life. I align my beliefs with the policy of the church. I also do not believe early term abortions should happen except as the church describes...rape, incest, life of the mother. I think sex education and contraception education are important and should be taught. I believe we should somehow incentivize birth over abortion but to do so, we need programs to help these women and babies from conception through delivery and strong programs to place the babies in loving homes. There does not seem to be a shortage of parents who would adopt babies. We would also need more funding for these services. I think science is going to do amazing things that will cause more ethical debates. Someday soon, I am sure we will see an 'artificial womb.'  https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/10/12/are-we-ready-for-the-artificial-womb/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Another point to why they are not covering abortion can be found on their intro to their group page on FB: 

They have a similar statement towards gay marriage. 

As a personal decision, I've decided to join MWEG. 1) because I do not like talking about a group that I know little about. 2) because, as I mentioned, I generally agree with their premise and focus . I may change my mind later....but I want to be informed by my own personal experience instead of relying on the assertions and perspectives of others.

 

With luv,

BD 

I think this group is a good fit for you. Many of my friends have joined them. They are not a good fit for me because I tend to be more conservative and don't agree with them or their issue selection. I only caution that as they seek media attention,  they make it clear they do not represent all Mormon Women and do not even represent all Mormon Women for ethical government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I've never said it did. I have never said I am solely pro-life. I align my beliefs with the policy of the church. I also do not believe early term abortions should happen except as the church describes...rape, incest, life of the mother. I think sex education and contraception education are important and should be taught. I believe we should somehow incentivize birth over abortion but to do so, we need programs to help these women and babies from conception through delivery and strong programs to place the babies in loving homes. There does not seem to be a shortage of parents who would adopt babies. We would also need more funding for these services. I think science is going to do amazing things that will cause more ethical debates. Someday soon, I am sure we will see an 'artificial womb.'  https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/10/12/are-we-ready-for-the-artificial-womb/

I didn't think you did....but my point was more about the idea that MWEG should be promoting pro-life policies as not necessary to be ethically focused. In part by pointing out that neither you nor I fully agree with a solely pro-life ethos, though I'm sure we disagree on the details of policies around abortion/reproductive rights (and agree on some too :) ). 

 

With luv,

BD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think this group is a good fit for you. Many of my friends have joined them. They are not a good fit for me because I tend to be more conservative and don't agree with them or their issue selection. I only caution that as they seek media attention,  they make it clear they do not represent all Mormon Women and do not even represent all Mormon Women for ethical government.

Hopefully, we'll see. I personally feel that it's fairly apparent that they are not the only position of mormon women. Though I think it does help to show, indirectly, that we are not a monolith of thought....even among the US LDS community where we can often assume the only correct position for a mormon is a republican one (what else could CTR mean? :P ). I'm not saying that you believe this at all...but I have seen that mentality in my very conservative family and in the area I live in period. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

They don't exactly do that either...and this strikes me as sexist. They tend to take positions on the hot button topics of the day. Immigration reform, Kavanaugh hearings, the resignation of Jess Sessions, the midterm elections, reckless rhetoric etc...

 

56 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It was intended to demean the powerful position of their own name - is that is sexist then it is sexist - my objective was to belittle. They do take on SOME hot topics - Jess Sessions is not hot; Immigration reform is very hot and ideas need to be discussed; Midterm elections - all elections - are hot; projecting civil discourse is valuable. However, tell me how you are going to be an advocate for civil discourse if you openly admit that you avoid divisive topics?  And now we come around to my comment on flowers, cookies, (Think Hillary Clinton here) etc. Being civil is hard when there are challenging topics to discuss. Choosing to avoid difficult topics is weak. 

Jeff Sessions, not Jess Sessions.

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...