- preserving the life of the mother -

[Uncle Dale]

I am proposing that the notion of "spirit" be jettisoned....

That would still leave the problem of what the legal meaning

of "a person" should be.

Suppose we eliminate any references to "soul" and "spirit"

from a country's legal code (as is the case in many nations

today already) -- we are still left with the problem of

determining what "a person" might be, and what rights that

"person" is entitled to, under the law.

Take two pregnant women, both ready to deliver a baby. In

one case the baby is born alive, but for some horrible reason

has its life terminated by a criminal immediately after birth.

In the second case, the same criminal administers a poison or

some other lethal act, which terminates the life of the

unborn fetus.

Has the criminal committed the same crime, under the law?

Has he murdered two "persons?"

If so, we can replay the same scenario several times over,

and in each case push backwards the age of the unborn fetus

by several weeks. Has the same crime been committed? Is there

a "person" involved, no matter how far back in time the

age of the unborn fetus is calculated?

No need to wonder about spirits here -- this is the sort of

question a society needs to address, no matter any "spirits."

UD

[handys003]

How about "it doesn't" for a simple answer.

And you would know how? Answer is you don't. Your speculating.

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

You are still wrong, and deliberately teaching false doctrine.

Here is what the Church officially says.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

[Tarski]

That would still leave the problem of what the legal meaning

of "a person" should be.

That is very true. The question of personhood is tough and I see the traditional metaphysical concept of spirit as a conversation stopper and as providing a sort of excuse for not tackling the personhood problem earnestly.

At this point I think we will have to make policies based on an imperfect and tentative understanding of personhood. To be honest, I am pessimistic about getting even approximate agreement.

[Tarski]

And you would know how? Answer is you don't. Your speculating.

what did I claim to know?

Am I also speculating when I suggest that the concept of phlogiston is unhelpful for explaining combustion? How do I know phlogiston doesn't exist after all despite the success of the modern chemical explanation of combustion?

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

For you to give equivalency to human beings are nothing more than a complex chemical reaction is objectionable on many a ethical, legal, and yes even scientific grounds.

[Obiwan]

Obiwan:

You are still wrong, and deliberately teaching false doctrine.

Here is what the Church officially says.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

[Uncle Dale]

...

By the way, the rape or incest one is ONLY to be considered if there

will be possible serious issues, and or trauma that will result.

...

That's interesting.

Say that two teenage girls were each raped by their fathers and

both became pregnant. Their bishop or perhaps their stake president

decides that one can have an abortion, but not the other girl.

What factors might have determined the LDS decision that the first

girl could have an abortion, but not the second one?

UD

[frankenstein]

Health and trauma of the woman are the only "valid" reasons according to the Church.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you clearly have comprehension problems, not actually reading to comprehend my posts, instead having the normal knee-jerk liberal false witnessing response against conservatives.

I clearly said, HEALTH and TRAUMA.

Each one of those bullet points falls under one of those two.

By the way, the rape or incest one is ONLY to be considered if there will be possible serious issues, and or trauma that will result. Reading the words of the prophets on this issue, such is clear. That brief summary does not mention such distinctions.

i wanted to give you benefit of the doubt as I surmised your explanation. However, you first indicated ONLY the woman's health or trama - now I suppose a baby shortly after birth (minutes) could be trauma to the mother, but your posts did not seem to suggest that, and sometimesaint quoted a Press release.

Also, could you indicate where you support this statement "By the way, the rape or incest one is ONLY to be considered if there will be possible serious issues, and or trauma that will result". The gospel principles manual makes no such claim.

[Tarski]

Tarski:

For you to give equivalency to human beings are nothing more than a complex chemical reaction is objectionable on many a ethical, legal, and yes even scientific grounds.

That sentence does parse well enough for me to be sure what you are saying. I certainly don't think that a person is best described as a chemical reaction.

I do however think that a collection of undifferentiated cells does not have what it takes to be a person except maybe by fiat or convention.

[frankenstein]

That's interesting.

Say that two teenage girls were each raped by their fathers and

both became pregnant. Their bishop or perhaps their stake president

decides that one can have an abortion, but not the other girl.

What factors might have determined the LDS decision that the first

girl could have an abortion, but not the second one?

UD

you are convaluting the issue.

"Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct."

The choice is up to the "persons involved", the local church leader does not have the final say, the Church leader is only "consult" not direct.

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

Your wingnut dismissal of what the Prophets have clearly said is duly noted.

To give but one example of your wingnuttery is the fact that defects in the fetus are seldom the result of trauma.

Pedal your false doctrine elsewhere.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I do however think that a collection of undifferentiated cells does not have what

it takes to be a person except maybe by fiat or convention.

I am trying to imagine some lawyer or judge considering the case

of three petri dishes in a laboratory: xyz01, xyz02 and xyz03.

The first petri dish (xyz01) contains a human egg and sperm

in very close proximity. Is xyz01 a "person?"

The second petri dish (xyz02) contains a human egg and sperm

which has barely entered the egg. Is xyz02 a "person?"

The third petri dish (xyz03) contains a human egg in which

sperm has entered and the egg divided. Is xyz03 a "person?"

If xyz03 is a "person" who is he/she/it?

Who is responsible for insuring its legal rights and protection?

The State?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...the Church leader is only "consult" not direct.

So, back to the two raped, pregnant girls -- if one father

demanded that his daughter have the incestuous child, and

the other father demanded his daughter have an abortion,

is that the end of it all? (Say the girls were 14 years old).

No LDS church inquiry or trial(s) necessary?

UD

[Tarski]

I am trying to imagine some lawyer or judge considering the case

of three petri dishes in a laboratory: xyz01, xyz02 and xyz03.

The first petri dish (xyz01) contains a human egg and sperm

in very close proximity. Is xyz01 a "person?"

The second petri dish (xyz02) contains a human egg and sperm

which has barely entered the egg. Is xyz02 a "person?"

The third petri dish (xyz03) contains a human egg in which

sperm has entered and the egg divided. Is xyz03 a "person?"

If xyz03 is a "person" who is he/she/it?

Who is responsible for insuring its legal rights and protection?

The State?

UD

LOL

There is a possibility that few are willing to entertain. Namely, there simply is no fact of the matter as to exact necessary and sufficient conditions for personhood. There is a large ineliminable gray area and a large penumbra of borderline cases.

..

[frankenstein]

So, back to the two raped, pregnant girls -- if one father

demanded that his daughter have the incestuous child, and

the other father demanded his daughter have an abortion,

is that the end of it all? (Say the girls were 14 years old).

No LDS church inquiry or trial(s) necessary?

UD

i hghly doubt a "father" would have any say in the matter. A Church leader SHOULD be obligated to report the sexual abuse (not all states require spiritual leaders to report sexual abuse, and I am not positive on the LDS Church position; I can not conjure a single reason why the LDS Church would not instruct its leaders to report sexual abuse). A State/gov would take away parental rights of the abuser. Some states allow for underage girls to get permission from a judge and not the parents.

[Uncle Dale]

i hghly doubt a "father" would have any say in the matter.

...

In many families the father is the head of the household

and his "word is law."

Say that the two rapist fathers each take their pregnant daughters

across the border, into Mexico for a "family vacation." The

first father demands that his daughter abort the incestuous

child, despite her loud objections.

The second rapist-father is moved by his own daughter's

loud objections and consents to allow her to keep the child.

All these people return back across the border -- months

later their bishop learns the facts of the two cases. How

does he determine if the one abortion in the Mexican

doctor's office was proper/allowable under LDS doctrine?

UD

[frankenstein]

In many families the father is the head of the household

and his "word is law."

Say that the two rapist fathers each take their pregnant daughters

across the border, into Mexico for a "family vacation." The

first father demands that his daughter abort the incestuous

child, despite her loud objections.

The second rapist-father is moved by his own daughter's

loud objections and consents to allow her to keep the child.

All these people return back across the border -- months

later their bishop learns the facts of the two cases. How

does he determine if the one abortion in the Mexican

doctor's office was proper/allowable under LDS doctrine?

UD

go ask a bishop (a priesthood leader, probably prays about it, or lives his life in such a way that inspiration is just there for him.)

you are asking hyper-technical hypotheticals.

The general "policy" which governs your hyper-technical hypotheticals has been given.

[Obiwan]

Obiwan:

Your wingnut dismissal of what the Prophets have clearly said is duly noted.

To give but one example of your wingnuttery is the fact that defects in the fetus are seldom the result of trauma.

Pedal your false doctrine elsewhere.

TSTS.... Grow up.

Defects in the fetus is "health" related.

I'm not teaching any "false doctrine". I simply SIMPLIFIED the Churches standard into two main category's.

Health related or trauma related..... Both can relate to either the mother or the child, and/or can be either physical or emotional.

So, stick it.

[Obiwan]

i wanted to give you benefit of the doubt as I surmised your explanation. However, you first indicated ONLY the woman's health or trama - now I suppose a baby shortly after birth (minutes) could be trauma to the mother, but your posts did not seem to suggest that, and sometimesaint quoted a Press release.

I've fully clarified my position above.

As to your comment, "after birth" there can be no cause to killing a child unless it's going to die anyway, or similar serious issue. That would be "health" related of the child, not trauma towards the mother.

Also, could you indicate where you support this statement "By the way, the rape or incest one is ONLY to be considered if there will be possible serious issues, and or trauma that will result". The gospel principles manual makes no such claim.

I'm simply talking about the words of the Prophets through the ages. You're not just "allowed" to kill a baby in the womb "simply because" you were raped or due to incest. There must be "good reason" still, that is related to the health of the mother emotional or otherwise, or the other issues that might result down the road in life which can cause big problems. I'm simply stating that while it is an "allowed" category of the three, it's not AS "automatically allowed" as the other two category's.

[Brenda]

what right? The right to unilaterally decide for society what constitutes as person and what is mere molecular machinery?

Fortunately, no one person gets to decide such things.

Except God.

An understandable and expected attitude to have toward ones pregnancy. On the other hand, it isn't really one that you seem to have come to as a matter of rational thought.

If you had somehow found out that you were pregnant when the fetus had only a few dozen undifferentiated cells would you still have thought of it as a person? Does it matter that this entity would have no brain and therefore no thoughts or feelings. Would it matter that it had no organs, no heart, no skin, no legs, no bones, no organs at all?

No.

If such a tiny collection of undifferentiated cells with less intelligence and far far fewer concerns and desires than a housefly were on one side of a room and my living daughter on the other side and both were threatened with death in such a way that you could only save one of them, would it be a hard decision which to save?

It would be a no-brainer for me.

I agree with you here. As does Church policy.

IMO, if a couple chooses to have sex, then they've chosen the possibility of conceiving a baby. They have the moral obligation to let that life grow, except in the rare situations already stated. In those rare cases, God's opinion and approval must be sought.

I dunno, this just doesn't seem complicated to me. Difficult maybe, emotionally charged certainly, but not complicated.

[Nemesis]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Political Thread

Thank you,

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff