Jump to content
TheRedHen

Feminism’s war against women

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I did not realize you guys hold that our first parents were conceived naturally. If you are correct about that, yes. If Catholics are correct, no.

I don't think any other prophet ever posited this; it was just one of the many musings of Brigham Young. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, TheRedHen said:

The feminist movement has really done a number on women with respect to the issue of abortion.  We've been bullied into accepting that the decision to abort or not abort is 100% in the hands of the woman.  It's her body.  No one can tell her what to do with her body.  Fine, but let's be honest about how that harms women.  If 100% of the decision making power is hers then so is 100% of the responsibility.  The man who impregnated her is off the hook.  So is the doctor who performs the abortion.  They're only doing what she has decided she wants.  They're serving her desire.  Is that fair?  Of course not.  What is fair is to have everyone involved share the weight of the decision.  The boyfriend or husband shouldn't be able to hide behind her decision.  The doctor shouldn't be able to pretend it's just another requested routine medical procedure.  If abortions are to occur then let's share the burden and let everyone involved suffer the consequences.  I think we'd have fewer of them in the end.

  •  

Feminism did nothing to erase responsibility from men or the doctor. It is and always has been there. 

If a woman chose to have an abortion it is she who made the choice and was responsible for it. If a man supported it in anyway that was and still is his choice and he is responsible for his actions or lack if actions. If the doctor performs an abortion the doctor is responsible for the choice of doing it. 

Pro choice advocates are asserting that they get to decide what happens with their own bodies, but really they had that choice before. With pro choice now what they are really doing is choosing the HOW it  is done - legally, in medical offices etc, not that they get a choice of whether or not to do it, where they didn't before. Because of this and because they were always responsible for different things doctors and men are still "on the hook". 

And all of this conveniently ignores the choice of the child, but if you are comparing the who have the choices and responsibilities in this life as the OP is then bringing the child's choice is a different issue.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think any other prophet ever posited this; it was just one of the many musings of Brigham Young. 

I've never heard of it. If it is actual doctrine it certainly isn't discussed much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suppose that succinctly sums up many of the major differences between Catholicism and LDS Restorationism.  

 

The shortest poem ever written...

“Fleas”

Adam had ‘em.

I see you like Rimsky-Korsakov....one of my all-time favorites, too..... to listen to and to play.

I can act like Flight of the Bumblebee. I can't play though. Do you fiddle a liddle? Just this day, I read a little joke that A. Solzenhitsyn made at the expense of the Soviet justice system. It involved both Rimsky and Korsakov!

The zeks (gulag prisoners) of In the First Circle, held a mock trial of Prince Igor, the subject of A. Borodin's opera of the same name. Of course, all parties were subversive, from the 12th Century prince, to the author of the opera. Furthermore, it was urged that a certain person called Rimsky, as well as Korsakov, were contemptible and to be tried for complicity for helping, with A. Glasunov, to complete the opera.

Maybe you have to be there. It seemed cleverly amusing that the judge and prosecutor thought R-K was two people. 

3DOP...p.393 in the authorized translation of Harry T. Willets, the restored text.

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Wendy Watson Nelson is from Calgary

Well, about 100 miles South of Calgary. 

The number of members in Alberta is about 1 % of the population so not quite a Canadian Utah, but hey we make up for it in enthusiasm .

As for the OP, I am sickened that a State would pass a law allowing a baby born alive to be aborted if the mother so decides. 

Edited by strappinglad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've never heard of it. If it is actual doctrine it certainly isn't discussed much. 

Rain, it has never been doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. It has never even been considered to be doctrine. Brigham thought about a lot of different things and he freely shared his opinion on them. However, almost none of his thoughts ever developed into doctrine of the Church. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rain, it has never been doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. It has never even been considered to be doctrine. Brigham thought about a lot of different things and he freely shared his opinion on them. However, almost none of his thoughts ever developed into doctrine of the Church. 

I didn't state that well. I was thinking of different things that have once been considered doctrine and now are not. Not knowing my history nearly so much as most here when I said "if it is doctrine" I meant that if it were ever considered doctrine, the fact that I don't know about it now makes me feel sure it isn't now. I was giving myself an out in case someone came back and said, "well in 1902 it was doctrine."  Nature of the board. Lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rain said:

Feminism did nothing to erase responsibility from men or the doctor. It is and always has been there. 

If a woman chose to have an abortion it is she who made the choice and was responsible for it. If a man supported it in anyway that was and still is his choice and he is responsible for his actions or lack if actions. If the doctor performs an abortion the doctor is responsible for the choice of doing it. 

Pro choice advocates are asserting that they get to decide what happens with their own bodies, but really they had that choice before. With pro choice now what they are really doing is choosing the HOW it  is done - legally, in medical offices etc, not that they get a choice of whether or not to do it, where they didn't before. Because of this and because they were always responsible for different things doctors and men are still "on the hook". 

And all of this conveniently ignores the choice of the child, but if you are comparing the who have the choices and responsibilities in this life as the OP is then bringing the child's choice is a different issue.

 

I agree with you in principle. However there are factors that muddy the "choice" waters. The two that I have in mind are minor consent and uninformed consent. 

Governments have rightly recognized that children, typically under the age of  18, lack sufficient understanding to legally consent.  In other words, they are not, and ought not be held responsible for certain choices they make. (see HERE)  For this reason, typically minors are legally prohibited from making certain choices, though abortions in various nations do not require parental or guardian consent (leaving it to the minor), and 11 of the U.S. states only require parental involvement. (see HERE) In other words, these governments believe the child isn't capable of consenting to sex, but is capable of consenting to destroying the unborn babies resulting from sex. :shok:

See part 2 below

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rain said:

Feminism did nothing to erase responsibility from men or the doctor. It is and always has been there. 

If a woman chose to have an abortion it is she who made the choice and was responsible for it. If a man supported it in anyway that was and still is his choice and he is responsible for his actions or lack if actions. If the doctor performs an abortion the doctor is responsible for the choice of doing it. 

Pro choice advocates are asserting that they get to decide what happens with their own bodies, but really they had that choice before. With pro choice now what they are really doing is choosing the HOW it  is done - legally, in medical offices etc, not that they get a choice of whether or not to do it, where they didn't before. Because of this and because they were always responsible for different things doctors and men are still "on the hook". 

And all of this conveniently ignores the choice of the child, but if you are comparing the who have the choices and responsibilities in this life as the OP is then bringing the child's choice is a different issue.

 

As for informed consent in relation to medical procedures in general, and abortions in particular [un-able to enter text because of 403 issue), In other words, for these states, when it comes to having tonsils and appendix removed, doctors are required to properly inform their patients about risk factors and potential complications, etc., but  not for destroying and removing their unborn babies.:cray:

Sadly, people are being allowed to make choices they are incapable of understanding and know little or nothing about. 

While in this life these people may not be held responsible for their choices, they are still left to experience the oft unfavorable consequence of hose choices. Hopefully, in the afterlife, the people granting minor and uninformed consent for abortions will be held responsible.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/13/2019 at 7:23 PM, TheRedHen said:

The feminist movement has really done a number on women with respect to the issue of abortion.  We've been bullied into accepting that the decision to abort or not abort is 100% in the hands of the woman.  It's her body.  No one can tell her what to do with her body.  Fine, but let's be honest about how that harms women.  If 100% of the decision making power is hers then so is 100% of the responsibility.  The man who impregnated her is off the hook.  So is the doctor who performs the abortion.  They're only doing what she has decided she wants.  They're serving her desire.  Is that fair?  Of course not.  What is fair is to have everyone involved share the weight of the decision.  The boyfriend or husband shouldn't be able to hide behind her decision.  The doctor shouldn't be able to pretend it's just another requested routine medical procedure.  If abortions are to occur then let's share the burden and let everyone involved suffer the consequences.  I think we'd have fewer of them in the end.

Your premises are flawed (you can be responsible for something without having a say in how it is dealt with afterwards) and I am trying to figure out how you intend to apportion the guilt equally. How do you make the father responsible? Tell him he has been bad? 

And how do you divide the decision making? When the doctor, mother, and father disagree does it require a 2/3 majority to decide?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/13/2019 at 6:47 PM, TheRedHen said:

Haha - sorry about the avatar.  What is your country of origin?  I’m from Australia and what I find interesting is that although as a nation we are less religious, as a people we are much more respectful of religion and life than America.  That’s my opinion anyway.

And your opinion on American culture is based on what, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I can act like Flight of the Bumblebee. I can't play though. Do you fiddle a liddle? Just this day, I read a little joke that A. Solzenhitsyn made at the expense of the Soviet justice system. It involved both Rimsky and Korsakov!

The zeks (gulag prisoners) of In the First Circle, held a mock trial of Prince Igor, the subject of A. Borodin's opera of the same name. Of course, all parties were subversive, from the 12th Century prince, to the author of the opera. Furthermore, it was urged that a certain person called Rimsky, as well as Korsakov, were contemptible and to be tried for complicity for helping, with A. Glasunov, to complete the opera.

Maybe you have to be there. It seemed cleverly amusing that the judge and prosecutor thought R-K was two people. 

3DOP...p.393 in the authorized translation of Harry T. Willets, the restored text.

Yes, I fiddle around. My favorites to play are Capriccio Espagnole and Russian Easter Overture. Scheherazade is fun, too. He knew how to write for the violin!

Good joke! 😁

Do you know the story behind Prokofiev’s Lieutenant Kije?

I thought R-K were the Smith Brothers’ first names (Raspy and Korsicough) 🥴

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see you like Rimsky-Korsakov....one of my all-time favorites, too..... to listen to and to play.

Never heard of him.  A quick check of Wikipedia to see who he was... and then a check of YouTube to find one of his works, Scherazade.

Nice!

I suppose I was pre-disposed to like his music because two of my well-admired people like his music, but what's to complain about?  😄 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think any other prophet ever posited this; it was just one of the many musings of Brigham Young. 

Brigham did a lot of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Rain said:

I've never heard of it. If it is actual doctrine it certainly isn't discussed much. 

And then we come to the question, sometimes discussed on this board, as to "What is doctrine?"  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The one time the question of abortion came anywhere near my actual personal experience was when my late wife became pregnant for our first time.  Because she was about 40, the doctor suggested that she have amniocentesis performed to see if the baby might have Down's syndrome or some other defect (thus forming a justification for abortion).  She told him there was no way in hell she was going to have an abortion, pretty much no matter what, and he then dropped the recommendation, since the procedure had risks and if the information wasn't going to be acted upon, then there was no justification for the risk.  I was totally not involved, being in Europe at the time, and only found out later.

The point I'm making is this: my wife was not a feminist.  But the decision vis-a-vis abortion was pretty much 100% hers (leaving aside the doctor's willingness to go along with the decision, which is only ancillary).  Feminism has a lot to answer for, but sometimes those who dislike or oppose it blame it for too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And then we come to the question, sometimes discussed on this board, as to "What is doctrine?"  

Man shall not live by "official" doctrine alone but by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from God's mouth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Man shall not live by "official" doctrine alone but by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from God's mouth.

Not every utterance from an apostle is Gods word. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Not every utterance from an apostle is Gods word. 

When I first joined the Church I took an Institute course (I think I had to pay for the material in a huge binder) It very clearly stated that as members we are only bound by what the First Presidency states. This makes great sense to me and aligns with the Temple.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I agree with you in principle. However there are factors that muddy the "choice" waters. The two that I have in mind are minor consent and uninformed consent. 

Governments have rightly recognized that children, typically under the age of  18, lack sufficient understanding to legally consent.  In other words, they are not, and ought not be held responsible for certain choices they make. (see HERE)  For this reason, typically minors are legally prohibited from making certain choices, though abortions in various nations do not require parental or guardian consent (leaving it to the minor), and 11 of the U.S. states only require parental involvement. (see HERE) In other words, these governments believe the child isn't capable of consenting to sex, but is capable of consenting to destroying the unborn babies resulting from sex. :shok:

See part 2 below

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So the parents should make the decision even though they do not have to deal with the consequences?

Share this post


Link to post

Also it is somewhat telling that your main criticism of feminism in this case is that men are not included enough...........

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Never heard of him.  A quick check of Wikipedia to see who he was... and then a check of YouTube to find one of his works, Scherazade.

Nice!

I suppose I was pre-disposed to like his music because two of my well-admired people like his music, but what's to complain about?  😄 

Cool! Check out Capriccio Espagnole and Russian Eater Overture! Will you be in Seattle any time soon?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Man shall not live by "official" doctrine alone but by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from God's mouth.

I love Brother Brigham. He was interesting.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Do you mind if I defend the abortion laws?  I do so as a libertarian.

Legalized abortion means that a woman seeking an abortion has a safe place to do it.  Before legalized abortion, any woman could get an abortion but it was very risky and particularly afflicted the poor.  It is the woman's choice to do it.  It is not the man's choice.  A woman should be free to choose.  Government should not coerce the woman.

The bible does not condemn abortion as murder.  Tellingly, and what has convinced me, is that if a pregnant woman miscarries after being struck while two men are fighting, the Bible requires the award of damages.  However, if the pregnant woman is killed while men are fighting, the penalty os death.  

As a religious matter, I find abortion reprehensible and I have serious doubts that persons involved in abortion will ever have forgiveness in the worlds to come. Abortion is a race war against poor minority.  But, because of the Bible's stance towards accidental foeticide, the solution is clear.  The woman should be free to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So the parents should make the decision even though they do not have to deal with the consequences?

No. I believe the parents should make the decisions in matters requiring consent, if not also matters concerning age appropriateness. that involve their underage children because that rightly is their parental responsibility, but also  because they typically do have to deal with the consequences, directly and indirectly.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

  • Similar Content

    • By Barney
      Just a few honest questions about the LDS Church and abortions.
      If a member of the LDS Church has an abortion, where does the spirit or soul of the aborted child go?  Does the aborted child float somewhere up there until they've been sealed?  Can the aborted child be sealed?  What if the parent or parents of the aborted child try to hide the abortion?  Can they get a Temple Recommend while concealing the abortion and still be sealed while trying to hide the abortion?  If those with knowledge of the abortion and haven't disclosed their absolute 'fact of knowledge' and they proceed to obtain a Temple Recommend, are they allowed to participate in various Church and Temple functions?  If they've failed to disclose knowledge of the abortion, is everything they've done in the Temple after obtaining a Temple Recommend and performed Temple ceremonies null and void and without effect?
      What about those in Church (Stake Leaders, Bishops, and others in the local Ward, members, etc.) who are aware of this who've failed to disclose knowledge of an abortion?  Can they be penalized for not reporting this, including Family Patriarchs who have active knowledge of their own childrens' participation in abortions? 
      I realize that these may seem to be loaded questions, but to this day in late 2017, the Elders and Sisters have been unable to answer these questions thus far.  Their general answers are that, "Well, everyone is a sinner, everyone makes mistakes, all can be forgiven, and... pray to Heavenly Father about it and He will lead you to the answer", but they then refer me to the articles provided by Church leadership which don't answer any of these questions.  Personally, I know of one person on planet earth who deserves to know that he or she has an aborted half brother or half sister somewhere out there.
      This is not a knock on the Church, nor am I trying to be antagonistic, but I'd like other's views about the LDS Church and the topic of abortion.
    • By Five Solas
      The LDS Church has been loud in its opposition to legalized same sex marriage - perhaps most famously (infamously?) in its support for "Proposition 8" in California a few years back.  They've had company, of course.  Plenty of Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christians have endeavored to hold the line for "traditional marriage." 
       
      But while LDS have been loud & clear on the same sex marriage issue--they're relatively-speaking quiet on the question of legalized abortion where the mother's health is not in question (what I'm calling for purposes of this thread, "convenience abortion").  This is not to say LDS are in favor of abortion (they aren't)--but they clearly haven't shown the same political interest/energy in the matter of legalized convenience abortion.  And certainly not in comparison to Evangelicals and Catholics. 
       
      Why is that? 
       
      --Erik 
       
    • By KevinG
      Compare and contrast:
       
      1) The LDS Officer wanting a non-ceremonial assignment for the SLC Gay Parade being put on probation.
       
      2) A bakery being sued because they refused to bake a cake for a "gay wedding".
       
      3) A Hobby shop suing for the right to deny funding for medical procedures/products they feel are not moral.
       
      4) A Muslim man refusing to handle pork at his cash register suing Costco because he was reassigned to gather shopping carts.
       
      http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/
       
      Tuesday, February 24, 2015
      NEW YORK (WABC) -- A man is suing Costco for religious discrimination.
      He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts...
       
      Is it even possible to be consistent in the application of civil liberties, freedom of association, and religious rights across this diverse yet similar set of issues?
    • By BCSpace
      For your consideration:
      Trailer:

      Full Documentary:
      [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXOKsQqOiA
      Found myself largely in agreement with the trailer so I am now watching the full documentary. The first statements in the trailer by Phyllis Schafly mirrors the latest recent statements (Conference/Newsroom?) about people erroneously seeing the LDS priesthood in terms of a conflict between men and women.
      The goal of Planned Parenthood et. al. in getting children to experiment sexually in order to fuel the abortion business was accurately reflected as are the overall effects of modern feminism in society. I suspect that if it were produced by people with an LDS background it would be slightly tempered but little changed overall.
      This has been out since 2007 so it's a wonder I had not heard of it till now. Seems likely to be a valuable tool for explaining Christian/LDS values in the subject.
×
×
  • Create New...