Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill “Papa” Lee

I find myself in disagreement with the Church’s position, what is to be done.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You probably shouldn’t board nanny if you start the derail.

Or you should honor the same request I'm honoring. Or do you prefer malicious ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

Free will.

Share this post


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

I'd be interested in knowing how many people get excommunicated over abortion issues. I'd be interested in knowing what situation would warrant such an action, unrepentant attitude?

I would tell you a story from when I was serving in a Bishopric. But the command  to never speak of it, or share that information for the rest of my life, would put my soul in jeopardy, I fear.   

Edited by Bill “Papa” Lee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Free will.

Explain, please :) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ginger Snaps said:

You specifically said that you were “worried” that others might “misunderstand” the guidance. It’s really not your place or your business unless you happen to be a bishop or stake pres and one of your flock approaches you for assistance. 

As for whether it’s a fair question for a father or grandfather to be involved in how the guidance is interpreted and applied? I specifically mentioned a husband (though I should have said father—as long as it’s not a case of rape or incest or other situation where his involvement would be harmful). IMO, a grandfather would only have input if it’s a minor counseling with her parents about what to do. 

 

I do not pretend to sit in the “judgement seat”, so I would never know anyway. No matter how badly I framed it, I would my additional posts were questions, as well as concern. All are entitled to ask questions, and express concern, neither are judgements, or judgmental. Of course if that is how you view my comments and myself, there is nothing I can do to change your mind. But, you are allowed to pass judgement upon my comments, and upon me as well, but I will not do the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Considering our colonization of Salt Lake without Mexico’s permission the church as a whole has committed “thieves’ violations of these moral and ethical strictures”. Not only that but we also sent troops to support a nation invading our host nation. We were worse migrants then the MS13 gang so many whine about.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

It is a difficult matter to deal with, and you are correct. The child is innocent, and the difficult issue with abortion, is that in too many cases, if fact (it has been suggested) 98-99% of all abortions are for convenience, with no medical reason. This has been discussed many times in sermons, via General Conference, that so many who have no choice, must pay for those who do have choices.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Or you should honor the same request I'm honoring. Or do you prefer malicious ignorance?

I may have to fast and pray on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

We know from biology when life begins. It is when a genetically unique human organism is formed.

When spirit and body are united is neither knowable nor a particularly interesting question in my view.

Biologically though The sperm are all alive and so is the egg. It is perhaps fair to say that the potential begins when the sperm and egg form a zygote but that is still arbitrary. The egg is alive before that and has potential to create a life. So do the sperm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I may have to fast and pray on that one.

Too bad you aren't Catholic. I'd advise including self-flagellation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Explain, please :) 

When pregnancy is imposed upon a woman against her will, she, in order to be free and autonomous, must be permitted to terminate the pregnancy in consultation with family and church authority.

She ought, however, to be urged to exercise her freedom in support of the innocent life within. Only by exercising her freedom in this fashion can she be truly free, acting instead of being acted upon. It ain't the baby's fault she was both violated and enslaved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Biologically though The sperm are all alive and so is the egg. It is perhaps fair to say that the potential begins when the sperm and egg form a zygote but that is still arbitrary. The egg is alive before that and has potential to create a life. So do the sperm.

When, pray, is the novel and unique DNA formed?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

When pregnancy is imposed upon a woman against her will, she, in order to be free and autonomous, must be permitted to terminate the pregnancy in consultation with family and church authority.

She ought, however, to be urged to exercise her freedom in support of the innocent life within. Only by exercising her freedom in this fashion can she be truly free, acting instead of being acted upon.

I still don't see it. Let's say I'm hypothetically put into a situation I did not choose, one that was forced upon me, that involved caring for another human, am I then justified in killing that person because I didn't choose it? What you are saying is that if we are in situations we didn't choose it is ok to kill an innocent person.

Quote

It ain't the baby's fault she was both violated and enslaved.

Which is exactly why I am perplexed at your church's position on the issue. It isn't the baby's fault, yet the baby pays the biggest price.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

In which case it might be ethical but illegal. I doubt it would be a plural marriage situation where we would practice it in secret or openly in violation of the law. The counsel would probably stay the same because other nations have different laws.

The truth is we do not have revelation regarding abortion. Is it murder in the eyes of God? He has not said so to us. We have been counseled that it is generally bad and President Kimball used the scripture about not committing murder or anything like unto it implying it is like unto murder. On the other hand it is not treated like murder. On my mission there were five situations in which a potential convert had to be interviewed by a member of the Mission Presidency before baptism. We irreverently called the five HAPPI (homosexual activity, abortion or consenting to an abortion, been in prison, been employed as or solicited prostitution, and incest). I do not want to imply that these five things are of equal turpitude. A lot depends on circumstances in these cases but those were the five rules. Then there was the big one. If you have committed a murder you have to petition the First Presidency for permission for baptism.

This could change. Maybe abortion will be defined as murder. As it stands though while it is treated seriously it is not treated like murder. It is dangerous to provide definitions the Lord has not seen fit to give us. All that being said abortion is usually a serious sin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Too bad you aren't Catholic. I'd advise including self-flagellation.

I don’t make that part of my religious devotions. I just do it for fun. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I still don't see it. Let's say I'm hypothetically put into a situation I did not choose, one that was forced upon me, that involved caring for another human, am I then justified in killing that person because I didn't choose it? What you are saying is that if we are in situations we didn't choose it is ok to kill an innocent person.

Which is exactly why I am perplexed at your church's position on the issue. It isn't the baby's fault, yet the baby pays the biggest price.

I think the church recognizes that in some cases of rape or incest it is so toxic to the mental and emotional health of the mother that it is better to end the pregnancy then further destroy the mother. In the other case it is sometimes a question of one or the other surviving or the child being doomed even before they are born so the birth is pointless. All that being said the counsel is clear these are not free passes. You should seek the will of God before proceeding.

The baby actually pays little price. They go back to God in glory. Generally that is not and nor should it be our call to make but life is full of weird exceptions to everything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t make that part of my religious devotions. I just do it for fun. ;) 

I think you misunderstood me. I said flagellation, not flatulence... 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I still don't see it. Let's say I'm hypothetically put into a situation I did not choose, one that was forced upon me, that involved caring for another human, am I then justified in killing that person because I didn't choose it? What you are saying is that if we are in situations we didn't choose it is ok to kill an innocent person.

Which is exactly why I am perplexed at your church's position on the issue. It isn't the baby's fault, yet the baby pays the biggest price.

Yup. Life is tragic and hard and heartbreakingly beautiful.

Share this post


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

The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother.

It might in some cases where the mother is emotionally or mentally unstable.  Not the baby itself, but the constant reminder of what happened to her and possible fear of what might...will the rapist come back if he hears she is carrying his child, will a father or other relative in the case of incest use the pregnancy as a way to continue to emotionally manipulate and physically threatened the mother, etc.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I still don't see it. Let's say I'm hypothetically put into a situation I did not choose, one that was forced upon me, that involved caring for another human, am I then justified in killing that person because I didn't choose it? What you are saying is that if we are in situations we didn't choose it is ok to kill an innocent person.

Which is exactly why I am perplexed at your church's position on the issue. It isn't the baby's fault, yet the baby pays the biggest price.

And I respect the black/white position the RCC takes on this heartbreakingly difficult issue.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

Actually, based upon scripture, it is not logically inconsistent. Think about it. Think about the baby conceived by David a Bath-Sheba while Uriah was still alive. The Lord did not allow that child to live, for His own reasons, but the child itself was innocent of wrong doing. Of course there also is the case where God ordered the Israelites to kill even children in Deuteronomy 20:16-18. They were to save alive "nothing that breathed." I am not putting myself in the place of God here, or questioning the veracity of those scriptures. This sounds sort of cold blooded, but when God makes decisions, the innocence of a person may not be the determining factor as to life or death.

The Mosaic law did not require death for a person that caused a miscarriage as in Exodus 21:22-25. There are some who have argued that the verse 22 is actually is talking about a woman that delivers a child prematurely but lives rather than a miscarriage where the child dies. However, the Revised Standard Edition, catholic Version uses the word miscarriage, so I think that maybe Catholics would be pretty much bound by that interpretation. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not want to be seen as telling a Catholic what he or she believes or is bound by. I am just trying to look at the situation logically.

Now, finally, let's look at the case of a woman whose life may be put in danger by even trying to carry a child through to term, much less the actual delivery. A woman in such a situation is still faced with the same moral dilemma, i.e. of ending the life of an innocent and helpless child to save her own. It is unholy hell for a woman who holds life dear to be placed in such a situation.

Then when it comes to the case of children conceived due to rape or incest, another moral dilemma is before us. Especially when the victim is young and innocent. I just do not think it is logically or morally inconsistent for an abortion to be allowed, for God to allow it, during those circumstances and others after a lot of fasting and prayer.

Glenn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering our colonization of Salt Lake without Mexico’s permission the church as a whole has committed “thieves’ violations of these moral and ethical strictures”. Not only that but we also sent troops to support a nation invading our host nation. We were worse migrants then the MS13 gang so many whine about.

Salt Lake wasn't really Mexico's at that point in time.  The Mexican-American war was almost ready to end.  California and New Mexico had already fallen to the Americans by the beginning of 1847.  The second largest city in Mexico fell to the US by May 1, 1847.  Mexico City was going to fall in September 1847.  By the time the Saints left Far West, Salt Lake was de facto property of the US.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It might in some cases where the mother is emotionally or mentally unstable.  Not the baby itself, but the constant reminder of what happened to her and possible fear of what might...will the rapist come back if he hears she is carrying his child, will a father or other relative in the case of incest use the pregnancy as a way to continue to emotionally manipulate and physically threatened the mother, etc.

I do not understand your reply to Misererenobis' statement. This is what he said;

Quote

The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother.

He said: "The baby has done nothing wrong..."

your reply: "It might in some cases..."

In your reply, you listed some situations, but I fail to see how any of those situations that you listed give fault to the baby. Please do not take this wrong, I am not being critical, I just can't see how those situations make the baby responsible. I can see fault to a returning rapist or to the father, or even to the mom for her emotional instability due to her unwanted pregnancy. However, none of these are the babies blame.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think you misunderstood me. I said flagellation, not flatulence... 

I can also multitask.

  • 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.

×
×
  • Create New...