Jump to content

Ragerunner

Members
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ragerunner's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

242

Reputation

  1. Do you have any clear evidence to support this opinion?
  2. I think it both. I also think the church’s position show their concern for the mother by going beyond the discussion of life or death, but the overall health and safety of the mother. But the church adding ‘religious freedom’ to its abortion position this week show they also are seeing a connection/concern with these new abortion laws and religious freedom. If not then they would have had no reason to make such an edit.
  3. Actually the Idaho law doesn’t and many other red states don’t even allow for rape and incest. Only Utah’s current law follows the church position. No other red state law does and many Utah legislators have stated more restrictive laws are being planned. Idaho - “The law only makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the pregnant person’s life.” https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/06/24/idahos-trigger-law-will-abolish-abortions-30-days-after-scotus-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/ So Idaho’s law will restrict members religious freedom. There is a reason the church updated their website to add in religious freedom related to these abortion laws. Church’s position. “Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” The church’s position includes the health of the mother and fetus not surviving beyond birth. Health and life of the mother are two very different things.
  4. How is it spun? The church has taken the time just recently to reaffirm the church’s position on abortion. Bednar discussed this at the national press club event “Elder Bednar said the Church believes life is sacred, but considers exceptions to its anti-abortion stance in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother or infant are at risk.” (Clearly drawing a line that shows the church’s position doesn’t coincide with most of the new right wing State laws.) And then the church updates it website to link these new laws and religious freedom concerns.
  5. Added the links. My fault. The first link that discusses religious liberty related to these new laws is from the church’s website. The other quote is from a Tribune article.
  6. The LDS church has update their topic page noting that they do recognize that these extreme laws that don’t allow for abortions under the church’s long held position is going to be an attack on religious liberty. Will the church join current or future lawsuits to challenge many of these Republican created abortion laws. Since they restrict members abilities to follow church religious guidelines on abortions and attack members religious liberty? “The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/abortion “The statement acknowledged that, while Latter-day Saints hold “a diversity of personal and public policy views” around abortion, official church policy allows for terminating a pregnancy in some instances. Because of this, the current ruling threatens Latter-day Saint religious liberty on the matter, the statement argues, prioritizing an “extreme agenda over the well-being and personal conscience of Latter-day Saints and our neighbors.” https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/24/faith-leaders-react-roe-v/
  7. This is already happening and I have mentioned it a few times on here. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supports the value of life but clearly states that abortions should be allowed under certain conditions. Most of the new Republican laws restrict an lds member from living their religious beliefs. “The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when: Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” There is a Jewish church in Florida that is suing Florida for these same very reasons. I would would like to see the church sue as well to protect members religious freedoms. I think there is a clear reason the church has not showed support for these new abortion laws. They violate members religious freedom’s in those States.
  8. If a parent feels they don’t want their child to be exposed to a gay kiss, then simply don’t watch the movie. It really is that simple. What I find interesting is the lack of discussion threads about cartoon movies that show violence, killings, children being raised out of wedlock, theft, people lying and so much more.
  9. I personal think the church should also sue. Many of these new State laws will prohibit LDS members from following church guidelines on abortion. South Florida synagogue sues over Florida’s new 15-week abortion ban “A South Florida Jewish congregation has challenged a new state law that blocks abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, contending the measure violates privacy and religious-freedom rights.” “In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the act [the new law]. As such, the act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.” Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article262496912.html#storylink=cpy
  10. 1. I have posted numerous examples of new red state abortion laws that don’t allow for rape, incest or the mother’s health. 2. The church has a very clear position for decades on abortions. It is to be allowed in certain situations after discussion with local leaders and prayer. Including mothers health/life, incest and rape. I cut and pasted the church’s official position from the handbook at the beginning of this thread. So the church does officially allow abortion under those conditions.
  11. When they are dealing with previous rulings they can take that into consideration in producing a new ruling.
  12. I am not a supporter of abortions just because. But if the mother’s health is being significantly impact, the mother’s life is in danger, rape and incest then it should be an option that the mother can choose. I support the church’s position and anything more I don’t support. Most red states are going well past the church’s position and I will not support that. As I said before, such laws take away the religious rights of members of the church. It prohibits them from following the church’s guidelines and following the spirit. I am surprised so many members are so locked in on politics they so easily give up the church’s position and have their religious freedoms reduced.
  13. I think the ones that are forcing a victim of rape, incest or may die from the pregnancy, to have a baby, are crazier. With that said wouldn’t it been nice if the Supreme Court would have recognized that some type of balance/parameters would have done our country some much needed good.
  14. Not only do these new proposed laws not support the church’s position on abortion. I firmly believe it is morally wrong to force a woman, who has been raped or been a victims of incest to put her health and life on the line. Some of the new laws even change the language to ‘only if the mothers life is at risk’, from ‘her health is at risk.’ Nebraska "If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we're hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we're going to take further steps to protect those pre born babies." "Including in the case of rape or incest?" Bash asked. To which the governor replied: "They're still babies, too. Yes." Arkansas ”The top law official in Arkansas has defended the state’s law that would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest - even in regard to children - claimin that “God intended for life to begin at conception”. Arizona “Arizona Governor recently signed a 15 week abortion ban without rape or incest exceptions.” Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and the list is growing rapidly. Their are now strong movements to simply not allow any abortion at no matter the cost to the mother. THIS IS CRAZY!!! ”Matt Sandy, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said in an interview. We don’t think abortion is even necessary to save the life of the mother.”
  15. Are you kidding? Her pregnancy was unlike any other pregnancy on earth, ever. Many of the exceptions discussed hear are about the life and health of the mother, incest, rape etc. which many states are looking to not allow. (Which are current options under the church’s current position.) I think you comment is very offensive.
×
×
  • Create New...