Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheRedHen

Feminism’s war against women

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

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.

I read this a suggesting that, from a libertarian standpoint,  safe places should be allowed for people to perpetrate serious immoral acts that are fatal (the epitome of unsafe) to their victims--whether it is called "murder" or not.

I also read this metaphorically as saying that, from a libertarian position,  one of two partners equally involved in the creation of a product, is granted unequal rights to make decisions about the shared product because of where the product is housed and cared for over nine months--including complete destruction of the product.. In other words, if two people are equally involved in the creation of a new flying machine,  only one of the partners gets to make all the decisions about that flying machine, including shredding the flying machine, as long as it is in that partners hanger--and this even though the other partner will be legally on the hook to cover all expenses if or once the flying machine leaves the hanger.

The "reasoning" here seems upside-down to me, if not seriously flawed.

.Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I read this a suggesting that, from a libertarian standpoint,  safe places should be allowed for people to perpetrate serious immoral acts that are fatal (the epitome of unsafe) to their victims--whether it is called "murder" or not.

I also read this metaphorically as saying that, from a libertarian position,  one of two partners equally involved in the creation of a product, is granted unequal rights to make decisions about the shared product because of where the product is housed and cared for over nine months--including complete destruction of the product.. In other words, if two people are equally involved in the creation of a new flying machine,  only one of the partners gets to make all the decisions about that flying machine, including shredding the flying machine, as long as it is in that partners hanger--and this even though the other partner will be legally on the hook to cover all expenses if or once the flying machine leaves the hanger.

The "reasoning" here seems upside-down to me, if not seriously flawed.

.Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Not nearly as flawed as your analogies.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I read this a suggesting that, from a libertarian standpoint,  safe places should be allowed for people to perpetrate serious immoral acts that are fatal (the epitome of unsafe) to their victims--whether it is called "murder" or not.

I also read this metaphorically as saying that, from a libertarian position,  one of two partners equally involved in the creation of a product, is granted unequal rights to make decisions about the shared product because of where the product is housed and cared for over nine months--including complete destruction of the product.. In other words, if two people are equally involved in the creation of a new flying machine,  only one of the partners gets to make all the decisions about that flying machine, including shredding the flying machine, as long as it is in that partners hanger--and this even though the other partner will be legally on the hook to cover all expenses if or once the flying machine leaves the hanger.

The "reasoning" here seems upside-down to me, if not seriously flawed.

.Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

Is it appropriate to:

1.  Prohibit prostitution?

2.  Forbid the sale of alcohol on Sundays?

3.  Criminalize adultery?

If they are victimless crimes, they should not be prohibited.  Abortion is a victimless crime if you believe what the Bible says.  If you don't believe what the Bible says and consider the fetus a victim, well then I can see your position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not nearly as flawed as your analogies.

What flaws? Would you please point them out?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

Is it appropriate to:

1.  Prohibit prostitution?

2.  Forbid the sale of alcohol on Sundays?

3.  Criminalize adultery?

If they are victimless crimes, they should not be prohibited.  Abortion is a victimless crime if you believe what the Bible says.  If you don't believe what the Bible says and consider the fetus a victim, well then I can see your position.

It would help were you to engage my readings of your post. I will happily await a direct response. 

However, in the interim, I am not sure what passages in the Bible you have in mind, but I don't view dicing up unborn children as a victim-less crime. In fact, doesn't the Bible say something about milestones and offending little ones ? (Lk 17:2)

1. Is it appropriate to legally protect the eggs of endangered species?  (see HERE)

2. Is it appropriate to charge perpetrators with a double crime for killing a pregnant woman. (see HERE)

3. Is it appropriate to grant unequal rights based on gender?

4. Is the libertarian non-aggression principle inappropriate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

What flaws? Would you please point them out?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, an embryonic human is not akin to an invention and pregnancy is not akin to storing something in your garage. Tell a pregnant woman it is and I think you are liable to get punched.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sure, an embryonic human is not akin to an invention and pregnancy is not akin to storing something in your garage. Tell a pregnant woman it is and I think you are liable to get punched.

That may be true if the woman confuses a well-intended and innocuous principle comparison with an unkind material or value comparison, or is too easily offended. 

I have in mind the Gentile women whom Jesus compared to a dog (Mt. 15:21-28)  The woman could have easily been greatly offended since being made akin to a dog was one of the worst insults of that day and area.  

However, she reasonably grasped the relevant and well-intended  and rational principle being conveyed by Jesus, and was thus able to continue with the analogy,  herself, to ultimately work  it rationally in her favor. (ibid)

If she wasn't offended by what could have easily have been considered the worst insult of the day, imagine how less  likely she would be offended by a well-intended comparison between her daughter and an innocuous  flying machine.

What a wonderful example she was of how not to miss the reasonable point and not mistakenly rush to be offended. It is a worthy example to us all.

I have had similar experiences these days when I have been told that I was eating like a pig--which I reasonably took to mean that I was eating too fast and lacking respect for others around the table.

That having been said, did you see any flaws in principles?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

That may be true if the woman confuses a well-intended and innocuous principle comparison with an unkind material or value comparison, or is too easily offended. 

I have in mind the Gentile women whom Jesus compared to a dog (Mt. 15:21-28)  The woman could have easily been greatly offended since being made akin to a dog was one of the worst insults of that day and area.  

However, she reasonably grasped the relevant and well-intended  and rational principle being conveyed by Jesus, and was thus able to continue with the analogy,  herself, to ultimately work  it rationally in her favor. (ibid)

If she wasn't offended by what could have easily have been considered the worst insult of the day, imagine how less  likely she would be offended by a well-intended comparison between her daughter and an innocuous  flying machine.

What a wonderful example she was of how not to miss the reasonable point and not mistakenly rush to be offended. It is a worthy example to us all.

I have had similar experiences these days when I have been told that I was eating like a pig--which I reasonably took to mean that I was eating too fast and lacking respect for others around the table.

That having been said, did you see any flaws in principles?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This comparison fails because you are not the Messiah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Not every utterance from an apostle is Gods word. 

 

8 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

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.

What's sad is how much of revelation recorded by God's mouthpieces we get to ignore simply because the powers that be couldn't be bothered to vote on making it official.

With that kind of appreciation it's no wonder God rarely speaks and leaves them to do what they feel best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Dupl.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

What's sad is how much of revelation recorded by God's mouthpieces we get to ignore simply because the powers that be couldn't be bothered to vote on making it official.

With that kind of appreciation it's no wonder God rarely speaks and leaves them to do what they feel best.

I appreciate Gods word, the words of the brethren and I don’t feel God is passively aggressively punishing me.  I also know that not everything said by an apostle is direct revelation.  I don’t think that’s a disrespectful stance. 

  • Like 1

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.

  • 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...