Even Shrinks Are Clueless Without Christ

[Judd]

Is there a way to create a non-arbitrary distinction?

Also not what I'm arguing.

[The Nehor]

Also not what I'm arguing.

I am not arguing with you.

[LeSellers]

if you hold that a unique human being is created at conception it does mean that this 'natural' abortion is the greatest healthcare crisis that ever existed as hundreds of millions of people are allowed to die every year.

It could be that Father doesn't have a spirit child who matches the body of the "aborted" child. No spirit to inhabit that body: no person died.

Lehi

[The Nehor]

It could be that Father doesn't have a spirit child who matches the body of the "aborted" child. No spirit to inhabit that body: no person died.

Lehi

And the same argument could be made for any abortion.

[LeSellers]

And the same argument [that Father doesn't have a spirit child who matches the body of the "aborted" child] could be made for any abortion.

Not so, sir.

Were it thus, we would be justified in saying that God wanted a murder victim to die at that specific time, and we know this is untrue.

Since a spontaneous abortion, by definition, is natural, and an induced abortion, also by definition, is one where someone intervened to destroy the life of the child, we cannot know, and are unwise to speculate, that God didn't have a matching psirit for the body of the slain child.

Lehi

[The Nehor]

Not so, sir.

Were it thus, we would be justified in saying that God wanted a murder victim to die at that specific time, and we know this is untrue.

Instead we argue that God wanted a natural abortion to occur and this means he wanted that 'person' to die?

I am generally anti-abortion but I don't equate it with murder and I find it illogical and distasteful to do so. So you try to argue it with a murder analogy. Are you arguing that abortion is murder? And if so how do you square that with the Church permitting it under certain circumstances?

Since a spontaneous abortion, by definition, is natural, and an induced abortion, also by definition, is one where someone intervened to destroy the life of the child, we cannot know, and are unwise to speculate, that God didn't have a matching psirit for the body of the slain child.

Can we say the same thing when someone 'naturally' gets cancer? That it is okay to let them die without trying to prevent it because it occurred 'naturally'? No, we treat it and try to prevent it from killing the person. Yet we don't show spontaneous miscarriages the same dignity and put our medical resources to trying to prevent these tragic deaths.

I am not pro-abortion. All I am saying is that those who argue that abortion is murder don't treat all miscarriages as deaths. In other words they only ascribe personhood to the fetus in one specific area and ignore it in the others. Why? It is inconsistent. I want less abortion. I also want Pro-Lifers to stop with the insane rhetoric calling abortion murder to galvanize and shock their followers while not following through on what they are saying. As it stands all they do is manage to prove themselves frauds and make their side of the discussion look ridiculous....because they are acting ridiculously.

Edit: As for God having a matching spirit I have enough trust in the foreknowledge of God that we can't destroy his plan through our actions.

[LeSellers]

Instead we argue that God wanted a natural abortion to occur and this means he wanted that 'person' to die?

The part "No spirit to inhabit that body: no person died" seems to have escaped your view.

I am generally anti-abortion but I don't equate it with murder and I find it illogical and distasteful to do so. So you try to argue it with a murder analogy. Are you arguing that abortion is murder? And if so how do you square that with the Church permitting it under certain circumstances?

An analogy does not mean I equate abortion to murder. The Brethren have told us that (while murder is a sin for which repentance is not likely) they do not have any revelation on whether abortion is a sin for which one cannot repent. So I do not "equate" them. But this does not mean we have no basis on which to compare them.

Can we say the same thing when someone 'naturally' gets cancer? That it is okay to let them die without trying to prevent it because it occurred 'naturally'? No, we treat it and try to prevent it from killing the person. Yet we don't show spontaneous miscarriages the same dignity and put our medical resources to trying to prevent these tragic deaths.

Cancer is the natural result of some stress on a person's body. Smoking, for example, makes lung, throat, esophageal and other cancers more likely. Working with asbestos creates a good condition for mesothelioma. Infrequent, irregular "glandular exercise" contributes to prostate cancer. But others, like concentrated second-hand smoke, imposed by parents or co-workers, can also promote cancerous development. While God could conceivably intervene and prevent cancer in an unwilling victim, we know that He does not do so on a regular basis. Whether it is His will that this specific person develop cancer and die from it is an open question.

I am not pro-abortion. All I am saying is that those who argue that abortion is murder don't treat all miscarriages as deaths. In other words they only ascribe personhood to the fetus in one specific area and ignore it in the others. Why? It is inconsistent. I want less abortion. I also want Pro-Lifers to stop with the insane rhetoric calling abortion murder to galvanize and shock their followers while not following through on what they are saying. As it stands all they do is manage to prove themselves frauds and make their side of the discussion look ridiculous....because they are acting ridiculously.

Surgical abortion may be murder. We don't know. It is, apparently a lesser sin than outright murder. Just as in the Old Testament, where there were cities of refuge wherein homicides could find safety from an "avenger of blood", we have in modern jurisprudence a variety of degrees of life-taking: manslaughter (even involuntary manslaughter), and several degrees of murder. However, in all of these, someone died.

A miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is not murder, nor any level of homicide, because no one, not the mother, not a doctor, not the father, had any hand in destroying that life. It cannot be compared to homicide because, just as accidents happen without conscious willfulness, miscarriages also happen without human intervention. That does not mean there was no life lost. On the other hand, we simply do not know if a miscarried child was a "person". I wondered, nothing more, if this might not be the case.

When three of our daughters (yes we raised only two, but we have five daughters-in-law, and we love them all as daughters of our own) experienced, as far as we know, seven miscarriages among them, they, and we, all mourned for their lost children. I cannot speak for others, but we do treat them as "deaths", even though we as Saints did not recognize them as "persons" (they are not sealed to families, for instance).

As for God having a matching spirit I have enough trust in the foreknowledge of God that we can't destroy his plan through our actions.

Who claimed that abortion or even murder (much less miscarriage) was going to destroy His plan? Even Satan's worst efforts to undermine His plan will fail. We puny humans are not going to disrupt it, even though we may try (overtly or by neglect) to do so. But whether the plan suffers or not, we will still be accountable for our actions.

Lehi