CV75 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I think it would be possible to create a law making elective abortions illegal.That wouldbe a fine law and I would vote for that.
CV75 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I know it does, but that is counting on women/girls actually having the guts to walk into the bishop's office and ask - which in a society were there is so much pressure to be good and do good - I think there are many who would be too scared to seek out this council. Changing it from info you get in a PPI, to info you hear about and talk about in the open, would make it easier for everyone to get used to talking about it, and less intimidated to broach the subject. You could say the same thing for homosexuals, or porn addicts, or any number of issues that someone would be embarrassed about and feel uncomfortable about talking with the bishop about - for the same reason that homosexuality, and pornography issues are discussed openly, (instead of just behind closed doors) I think we need to come out of the closet... or at least come out of the bishop's office, with an open dialog and discussion on abortion too.I think when the point comes that we frequently and openly discuss incest, rape and and murder to adress the needs of a general memebrship that is caught in these traps (like the current widespresd ignorance of the dangers of gay "mariage," drugs and porn), abortion would tie in quite nicely.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) I disagree - plants have a spirit, but they do not have a brain.(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 3:5)5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually. - the spirits of the plants seemed to exist within the premortal realm, just as we did.So no, a brain does not equate to a spirit. A spirit is much more than that. Life is what equates to spirit - what is alive has a spirit. Many living things do not have brains as we know them, but have a spirit.I'm not advocating absolutist positions on it, I'm only advocating an increased awareness of the issues involved, and more programs / resources for women around reproductive issues.Were you scared as a child by the movie Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?Ps. The Church has an extensive program of support for those women whom find themselves undesirably pregnant.http://www.providentliving.org/lds-family-services/single-parent?lang=eng Edited March 31, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 That wouldbe a fine law and I would vote for that.The problem is do we really want the government making the decision as to whether something is elective or not considering the fact that neither of the two political parties have abortion planks that are consistent with the Church's position? I know I don't want my daughter necessarily forced into bearing a rapist's child if she does not want to.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 The problem is do we really want the government making the decision as to whether something is elective or not considering the fact that neither of the two political parties have abortion planks that are consistent with the Church's position? I know I don't want my daughter necessarily forced into bearing a rapist's child if she does not want to.We've already tried that. Rich women got a medically secure abortion and poor women got a coat hanger.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 We've already tried that. Rich women got a medically secure abortion and poor women got a coat hanger.Yep, that's basically true. If the Church amped up the rhetoric we would have another fit of "Onward Christian soldiers ..." Marching off to political war again.
Glenn101 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 How awkward would it be to be the prophet and receive the revelation about homosexual acts...Would you care to elaborate? Are you saying that a prophet might receive a revelation that homosexual acts are now sanctified and not a sin?Glenn
Bikeemikey Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Would you care to elaborate? Are you saying that a prophet might receive a revelation that homosexual acts are now sanctified and not a sin?GlennNo this was a humorous aside... Imagine being the prophet and suddenly getting a detailed series of visionary dreams about "homosexual scenarios..."You might wake up wondering what was going on.But sure of course it is a possibility god could reveal something like that. Anything is possible.
MormonMason Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) TSS, we allow members to make up their minds on aborting a child but not to marry the same sex? Something is askewed here.No, scripture openly condemns same-sex relationships (Jesus taught heterosexual marriage is God's pattern and intent for man and homosexuality is listed as one of a groups of sins that prevent entrance into the kingdom of God) but not abortion in all circumstances. Nothing is askew when you realize that the Church's position is in line with the scriptures.And, members can choose what they want to do, so long as they understand that there are consequences to their actions, up to and including excommunication for active practice thereof. Edited March 31, 2013 by MormonMason 1
rpn Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) 1--- I don't think any other faith excommunicates everyone who encourages, provides, pays for, or helps someone to get an abortion.2--- When the church does NOT do so in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, it IS NOT saying that doctrinally abortions under those circumstances are approved or okay or inconsequential. What it DOES say is that absent specific revelation to do so, the church leadership is not going to judge women who find themselves in that position. leaving that up to God Himself. Elder Oaks wrote a great Ensign article about that several years ago, pointing out that imposing on a woman to give birth in those circumstances, is removing agency, since the woman was not a participant in creating the issue. It is the removing agency that makes a church declaration forbidding abortion in those circumstances (as well as laws prohibiting abortion in those cases) inconsistent with Heavenly Father's plan.I am quite sure that church leaders and even the women involved would be thrilled if every woman who finds themselves in that place can find a way to take the pregnancy to term and place the child for adoption (though whether that benefits the child in these days of open adoption where is is highly probable that the child will learn of the circumstances gives rise to other questions). But there ought to be no condemnation or thinking less of women who cannot find themselves to do so.Having known personally a woman who made an appointment for an abortion, but who ultimately placed a child born of rape with LDS family services, I can tell you that the horror of the rape, and what that knowledge would do to that child even as an adult, is never far from the mind of the sister who chose to go that route, even decades later. Edited March 31, 2013 by rpn
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 1--- I don't think any other faith excommunicates everyone who encourages, provides, pays for, or helps someone to get an abortion.2--- When the church does NOT do so in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, it IS NOT saying that doctrinally abortions under those circumstances are approved or okay or inconsequential. What it DOES say is that absent specific revelation to do so, the church leadership is not going to judge women who find themselves in that position. leaving that up to God Himself. Elder Oaks wrote a great Ensign article about that several years ago, pointing out that imposing on a woman to give birth in those circumstances, is removing agency, since the woman was not a participant in creating the issue. It is the removing agency that makes a church declaration forbidding abortion in those circumstances (as well as laws prohibiting abortion in those cases) inconsistent with Heavenly Father's plan.I am quite sure that church leaders and even the women involved would be thrilled if every woman who finds themselves in that place can find a way to take the pregnancy to term and place the child for adoption (though whether that benefits the child in these days of open adoption where is is highly probable that the child will learn of the circumstances gives rise to other questions). But there ought to be no condemnation or thinking less of women who cannot find themselves to do so.Having known personally a woman who made an appointment for an abortion, but who ultimately placed a child born of rape with LDS family services, I can tell you that the horror of the rape, and what that knowledge would do to that child even as an adult, is never far from the mind of the sister who chose to go that route, even decades later.As the husband of a woman who gave her life, rather than limit the chances of her unborn by an early inducement i can tell you that no earthly man or government should be trying to take that judgment call out of the hands of the woman involved and she would tell you the same today if she were alive to do so. 1
CV75 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 The problem is do we really want the government making the decision as to whether something is elective or not considering the fact that neither of the two political parties have abortion planks that are consistent with the Church's position? I know I don't want my daughter necessarily forced into bearing a rapist's child if she does not want to.First, I took it as a hypothetical. Second, I take "elective" to mean "convenience." An abortion law that I would vote for (given the politcal realities, hence the hypothetical) would have allowances for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. No law is perfect, but making it less casual an option is beneficial, or at least would reflect the values of a more humane society. The penalties for breaking the law would also have to make sense to me. 1
CASteinman Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I do not think we have exactly the same views as Catholics. They view every single instance of conception to be to scared to destroy even if the life of the mother is at risk. I think LDS consider the life of the mother to be at least as important as that and maybe more so.
Bikeemikey Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) I do not think we have exactly the same views as Catholics. They view every single instance of conception to be to scared to destroy even if the life of the mother is at risk. I think LDS consider the life of the mother to be at least as important as that and maybe more so.We used to think the same the Catholics do:I don't normally post Mormon think links but this has a couple of good quotes for historical support and then the current LDS position on birth control.I believe joseph f smith claimed that to spill seed outside of a women was tantamount to murder... Trying to find that source now. Edited April 1, 2013 by Nemesis link removed due to temple content.
CASteinman Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 We used to think the same the Catholics do:No we did not. Despite your propaganda.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Thanks for this great post. I certainly didn't intend to cast a normative pall over the catholic position on this. I think a lot of non-Catholics are not aware of the diversity of catholic theological discussion.I don't dispute anything you have stated. The Catholic position on this is diverse.During my religious studies undergrad we had three different catholic clergy come and present on what were referred to as the three catholic positions on the afterlife of an aborted fetus:1) heaven like after life 2) limbo3) hellAnyone who believes a child could be in anything but one, denies the love of God and the atonement and will know three in a way that will make a lasting impression.
Glenn101 Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 No this was a humorous aside... Imagine being the prophet and suddenly getting a detailed series of visionary dreams about "homosexual scenarios..."You might wake up wondering what was going on.But sure of course it is a possibility god could reveal something like that. Anything is possible.Anything? Can God lie and remain God? Has there ever been anything that was declared a sin by God and later changed to not be a sin?I am not talking about something like polygamy that is sinful if not commanded by God. I am talking about things such as robbery, murder, rape, adultery, bestiality, homosexual acts, etc.Glenn
Stone holm Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Anything? Can God lie and remain God? Has there ever been anything that was declared a sin by God and later changed to not be a sin?I am not talking about something like polygamy that is sinful if not commanded by God. I am talking about things such as robbery, murder, rape, adultery, bestiality, homosexual acts, etc.GlennInteresting question about God. Don't know the exact answer to that, I guess that may to a certain extent depend on your definition of what is a "lie."
Bikeemikey Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Anything? Can God lie and remain God? Has there ever been anything that was declared a sin by God and later changed to not be a sin?I am not talking about something like polygamy that is sinful if not commanded by God. I am talking about things such as robbery, murder, rape, adultery, bestiality, homosexual acts, etc.GlennWith God anything is possible.For us to restrict gods future actions and commandments based on historical ones would be foolish. We should live all of gods commandments. Whatever they are today and what ever they will be tomorrow.
Bikeemikey Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Anyone who believes a child could be in anything but one, denies the love of God and the atonement and will know three in a way that will make a lasting impression.Lots of people believe those not baptized when young, of they die while young, will go to either hell or limbo.Hence child baptism. For some this can apply to children in the womb.
Stone holm Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Lots of people believe those not baptized when young, of they die while young, will go to either hell or limbo.Hence child baptism. For some this can apply to children in the womb.Lots of people, but not Mormons because believing or even expressing such as doctrine according to the B of M is a grievous sin.
CASteinman Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Lots of people, but not Mormons because believing or even expressing such as doctrine according to the B of M is a grievous sin.Its funny... I don't feel particularly evil in thinking that they will also have to be baptised. Some day. I am also ok with the idea that I am wrong.
Stone holm Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Its funny... I don't feel particularly evil in thinking that they will also have to be baptised. Some day. I am also ok with the idea that I am wrong.See you can't talk about evil in the abstract...lol
ERayR Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 See you can't talk about evil in the abstract...lolEvil is not just an abstract concept.
CASteinman Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 See you can't talk about evil in the abstract...lolI don't get your point. Am I supposed to be able to do that?
Recommended Posts