Permissibility Of Abortion

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

I thought the purpose was to make abortions rare?

Ps. I guess if your idea of providing viable service is a 93% reduction in services then it makes sense.

Edited September 24, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[blueadept]

blueadept:

I thought the purpose was to make abortions rare?

....which I don't believe Planned Parenthood accomplishes. They make it more convenient and misses the goal of making them rare.

On a side note, the young generation that is getting abortions are the poor and minorities. Us as Christians, can help make abortions rare even within this group by giving them viable options.

[thesometimesaint]

Blueadept:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/abortion-21519.htm

[Freedom]

Freedom:

I think that projecting any technology onto God is meaningless, and that speculating about when the spirit enters the body is futile.

You didn't answer my question. Technology shows us a shadow of what God is capable of. If we, as pathetic mortals, can deliver a crystal clear message some time after it has been given, I think God can deliver a message to one of his prophets without having to be present. Also, we do not know when the spirit enters the body but I think you are of the opinion that, since we don't know, we should assume it enters at birth. I would prefer to presume that it is present much sooner. Since the spirit makes someone a living soul, I have to fundamentally reject the notion that the spirit enters at birth.

[blueadept]

Here's a link for you TSS

http://www.all.org/n.../MzQ/id/NjA3OQ/

2010 Planned Parenthood service numbers

Number of abortions (medical and surgical): 329,445

Total number of abortions per week: 6,335

Adoption referrals: 841

Ratio of adoption referrals to abortions: 1 per 392

2011 PP Annual Survey

Total number of PP clinics: 749

Total number of PP clinics that perform surgical and medical abortions: 322

Total number of affiliates: 82

From these statistics, I don't believe Planned Parenthood is helping to make the issue rare......just convenient.

Edited September 24, 2012 by blueadept

[Vance]

So, the subjective personal experience of your leaders is more important in determining moral questions than the objective truth of God... I get it!

So the LDS membership gets to vote to determine what God commands? Please explain.

I am beginning to sense a pattern here.

[MiserereNobis]

I am beginning to sense a pattern here.

And the pattern is ... ? (you did say you were going to try to be a bit more verbose to more easily facilitate discussion)

[ed2276]

Ensoulment does not occur until birth in LDS teachings.

Really? Can you provide a reference for that teaching? I have never heard it before. I believe "ensoulment" happens at quickening, where fetal movement is felt, which happens long before birth.

[ed2276]

It was not my intention to offend, but I think I will stand my ground on this one and excuse myself from the thread after one more comment.

I feel quite differently about my wife than I do about my mother. I am protective of my mother but not in the same way. I expect my mother to pass away (she already has) before my wife does and my wife is my partner in raising my kids- I don't know what I would do without her. She will be my partner forever and is "one flesh" with me in a way my mother never was nor never will be nor ever should be. My wife is truly my "better half"- almost literally. It is like being one in the way the Godhead is one- one in love and purpose.

We are not supposed to be like that with parents.

I would love to interview a married Catholic priest who has loved his wife for 30 or more years and ask him if he would allow her to die or allow a fetus to die.

There is no question which I would pick, and if that is offensive to some, I cannot understand why, but it is my position and I am sticking with it. I have never thought of myself as "pro-choice" but I have never thought about it in these terms either.

Define it as you will- I am just telling you that given that decision- as I feel right now- there is no question which I would choose.

Again, my intention was not to offend by saying that, but I will not change my mind on this one.

I am in agreement with you here. If it came down to a decision between my wife's life and an unborn child's life, I would choose my wife every time.

[ed2276]

Agreed... Thus the reason the RCC takes the safest position that life should be protected from the point of conception to natural death. That leaves the issue totally in God's hands then.

I like that position. It is simple, safe, and consistent. It would be helpful if in the LDS Church we had a definitive, "Thus saith the Lord!" revelation on the matter.

I also like the Catholic position on divorce. I remember reading in the NT, some people were asking Jesus why divorce was allowed among the people. Jesus replied that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses allowed the people to divorce. But, He added, "From the beginning it was not so." The standard, then, from the beginning, was that divorce was not allowed; marriage was a permanent, sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

The LDS Church allows divorce, yet its ideal is eternal marriage. Does that mean that divorce is allowed among the LDS for the same reason it was allowed among Israel...because of the hardness of our hearts?

[rpn]

The OP misrepresents the church's position. The church merely has decided that since there is no revelation on exactly when the fetus becomes a child, the church is not going to take action against church membership for someone having an abortion when incest, rape, the life of the mother are concerned. The church leaves those cases completely up to the Lord to judge.

[mfbukowski]

I am in agreement with you here. If it came down to a decision between my wife's life and an unborn child's life, I would choose my wife every time.

I like that position. It is simple, safe, and consistent. It would be helpful if in the LDS Church we had a definitive, "Thus saith the Lord!" revelation on the matter.

I also like the Catholic position on divorce. I remember reading in the NT, some people were asking Jesus why divorce was allowed among the people. Jesus replied that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses allowed the people to divorce. But, He added, "From the beginning it was not so." The standard, then, from the beginning, was that divorce was not allowed; marriage was a permanent, sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

The LDS Church allows divorce, yet its ideal is eternal marriage. Does that mean that divorce is allowed among the LDS for the same reason it was allowed among Israel...because of the hardness of our hearts?

You do realize that the Catholic position would be to allow your wife to die, right?

I am grateful we do not have a "thus sayeth the Lord" position which would allow - in fact necessitate- that position.

[saemo]

No, the Catholic position would be to fight to preserve the life of both. The unborn is not seen as possessing less of a dignity, a right to life, than than the mother, or the mother less than the unborn.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[blueadept]

Mfb, I'm actuallly surprised that you're not aware of the Catholic position. Saemo is correct that both lives are to be fought for.

[mfbukowski]

Mfb, I'm actuallly surprised that you're not aware of the Catholic position. Saemo is correct that both lives are to be fought for.

Fighting is irrelevent in the crunch.

If it boils down to one surviving WHO IS IT?

THAT IS THE QUESTION.

[mfbukowski]

No, the Catholic position would be to fight to preserve the life of both. The unborn is not seen as possessing less of a dignity, a right to life, than than the mother, or the mother less than the unborn.

Clearly to me this is morally incorrect. The mother has more of a right in this horrible choice. Picking the fetus in such a case would be an abomination.

That is my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

Mfb, I'm actuallly surprised that you're not aware of the Catholic position. Saemo is correct that both lives are to be fought for.

I'm quite aware of it- I disagree with it.

[saemo]

Clearly to me this is morally incorrect. The mother has more of a right in this horrible choice. Picking the fetus in such a case would be an abomination.

That is my opinion.

Why? Is it not a human life?

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[MormonMason]

He needs a starship; why wouldn't he also need a tape recorder?

Gods don't use tape recorders. Besides the Holy Spirit, they use stones and crystals to store and relay certain kinds of information. Yes, I am actually serious.

[mfbukowski]

Why? Is it not a human life?

The mother's life is more important. She is a mature adult who has others depending on her- if she leaves this life it would clearly be more tragic.

These choices are not easy but sometimes they cannot be ignored by the cop-out "fight for both". Of course you would fight for both. That doesn't answer anything. The question doesn't even arise until the choice between one or the other must be made.

It becomes a choice of choosing one tragedy over another, but it must be done.

If religion only helps us in the abstract it is irrelevant in the nitty gritty.

[Ran]

Apart from the question of who has primacy in the right to life, Catholic ethics excludes the direct and intentional killing of the fetus as a means to save the life of the mother.

So in saving the life of a pregnant woman with uterine fibroma, hysterectomy can be a licit procedure, but intact dilation and extraction is not. Both entail the death of fetus.

[blueadept]

If religion only helps us in the abstract it is irrelevant in the nitty gritty.

Of course there is an answer if it came down to the 'nitty gritty' which would fall upon favoring the mother but rarely does it ever come to that especially in modern times. 99% of abortions are unnecessary. Our goal as Christians is to try to make that option as a truly rare case which is not even remotely coming close at this point in time.

[mfbukowski]

Of course there is an answer if it came down to the 'nitty gritty' which would fall upon favoring the mother but rarely does it ever come to that especially in modern times. 99% of abortions are unnecessary. Our goal as Christians is to try to make that option as a truly rare case which is not even remotely coming close at this point in time.

So you are saying that is doctrinal for Catholics? CFR

If that is true there is nothing to argue about - this thread is a waste of time.

You are manufacturing differences between us which do not exist.

Edited September 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Apart from the question of who has primacy in the right to life, Catholic ethics excludes the direct and intentional killing of the fetus as a means to save the life of the mother.

So in saving the life of a pregnant woman with uterine fibroma, hysterectomy can be a licit procedure, but intact dilation and extraction is not. Both entail the death of fetus.

CFR to you also. That means call for reference- you must give a reference or retract your statement as part of board rules. I want to get to the bottom of this question and find out what Catholic doctrine is instead of all this beat-around-the-bush nonsense.

[blueadept]

So you are saying that is doctrinal for Catholics? CFR

If that is true there is nothing to argue about - this thread is a waste of time.

You are manufacturing differences between us which do not exist.

My, my, my, we are in a feisty mood. There's no guidance in the catechism in regards to this position and I would have such a diagnosis verified by a Catholic doctor that I would trust. I suspect such a decision would be an extreme rarity since most babies can live outside the womb at about 6 months. If need be, I would choose the mortal sin of killing the baby while saving my wife and deal with the consequences. So be it. As you said, sometimes tough decisions need to be made. At least we have a forgiving God when we do separate ourselves from Him.