bluebell Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If not human life, what kind of life begins at conception? The zygote has distinct, unique HUMAN DNA.It will obviously become a child, but it is not one yet. For a body to be a child, it has to have or have had spirit. When a woman miscarries at 6 weeks, that life will not be resurrected. The death of the embryo is not treated by the church as the death of a child. There is no teaching that the child went to the celestial kingdom, for example. There is no teaching that every fertilized egg receives a spirit, making it a living being. Given the number if miscarriages which occur every day, the idea that each one had a spirit and was considered by God to be equal to a baby doesn't even make sense. All of that is what I'm referring to when I say it's not human life. 1
go_utes01 Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) So, you believe it is until the spirit is attached to the body that the baby (non-human) need not be protected? When do you believe that happens? Edited April 3, 2013 by go_utes01
bluebell Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 So, you believe it is until the spirit is attached to the body that the baby (non-human) need not be protected? When do you believe that happens?No I don't believe that. I believe that since God knows exactly when a group of cells becomes a child, He is more than capable of explaining when we need to protect that life, when it needs no protection (such as with hormonal birth control) and when it is acceptable to Him to end it because of rape, incest, or health. I don't believe there is any reason to second guess Him on the matter or to put conditions on life that He has not felt necessary to put on it. 2
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I am not putting conditions on life. Human life is sacred from conception to natural death and should be protected. Even on non-theological reasoning, human life is special and deserving of protection.
bluebell Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I am not putting conditions on life. Human life is sacred from conception to natural death and should be protected. Even on non-theological reasoning, human life is special and deserving of protection.Yes, I know that's what you believe. I just don't believe it matches what God has revealed on the topic. We disagree, which is alright. My beliefs are based on the teachings of what I believe to be God's church. I'm not sure where the authority of your beliefs come from but I'm sure you believe they are also authoritative in some way and don't just stem from your own passionate opinion. 1
Stone holm Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 So, you believe it is until the spirit is attached to the body that the baby (non-human) need not be protected? When do you believe that happens?Yes that is what I believe. We don't know and the Church hasn't taken an official stance on when the spirit becomes attached, although there have been some GAs who seem to be suggesting that it is when the baby starts kicking -- I think I could find you some Journal of Discourses statements to that effect (mind you that isn't doctrine), but the Church has not taken an official stance because it does not allow Temple work to be done for full term stillborns as yet. There is also still some question as to whether a spirit when it first enters the embryo can still be withdrawn and assigned another embryo as well, but that is more in the realm of somebody having said that some GA told them that sort of thing.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Yes that is what I believe. We don't know and the Church hasn't taken an official stance on when the spirit becomes attached, although there have been some GAs who seem to be suggesting that it is when the baby starts kicking -- I think I could find you some Journal of Discourses statements to that effect (mind you that isn't doctrine), but the Church has not taken an official stance because it does not allow Temple work to be done for full term stillborns as yet. There is also still some question as to whether a spirit when it first enters the embryo can still be withdrawn and assigned another embryo as well, but that is more in the realm of somebody having said that some GA told them that sort of thing.Well, since you say we don't know when that occurs, wouldn't the prudent thing be to assume earlier to be on the safe side?
Storm Rider Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I think Ute has a position that is more logical for me personally. I have a difficult time trying to define when a spirit is and is not present in a child's development. It only makes sense that anything that endangers the life of a child be undertaken with extreme caution in all its facets: spiritually, morally, etc. Any choice that indicates the ending of life for one's personal convenience is among the vilest of sins. I don't think we need to be taught specifics in all things to know the right from wrong.
Stone holm Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I think Ute has a position that is more logical for me personally. I have a difficult time trying to define when a spirit is and is not present in a child's development. It only makes sense that anything that endangers the life of a child be undertaken with extreme caution in all its facets: spiritually, morally, etc. Any choice that indicates the ending of life for one's personal convenience is among the vilest of sins. I don't think we need to be taught specifics in all things to know the right from wrong.I personally agree with this, but still would not have the government making the decision for the woman.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I personally agree with this, but still would not have the government making the decision for the woman.Are you ok with the government making those decisions (by making those decisions, I assume you mean outlawing/providing punishment for actions) after the baby is born? Why the distinction? Why do you trust the government "to make those decisions" after birth, but not before? Or, do you believe that a mother/father should be allowed to choose "to end the life" of their child after birth as well, a sort of post-birth abortion right? I mean, who are we to impose our morality on others?
Stone holm Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Are you ok with the government making those decisions (by making those decisions, I assume you mean outlawing/providing punishment for actions) after the baby is born? Why the distinction? Why do you trust the government "to make those decisions" after birth, but not before? Or, do you believe that a mother/father should be allowed to choose "to end the life" of their child after birth as well, a sort of post-birth abortion right? I mean, who are we to impose our morality on others?I don't think that the father and mother should have the right to put their child to death, although apparently many Christian sects in the past did believe just that including the American Pilgrims. But, I believe that prior to birth the woman should be in charge of the decision and the doctors should not be trying to fathom something that the Church isn't even sure about. Although I wouldn't be opposed to banning partial birth abortions or even late term abortions which the State under Roe v. Wade is allowed to regulate. I think at some point along the way the mother perhaps gives up the right to terminate the pregnancy, but I do not trust a bunch of politicians in the legislature to be making that call. The Federal debate is not actually so much about whether an abortion should occur, but more about whether it gets paid for -- which means that a rich girl can have access to a safe abortion, but the poor girl doesn't. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Yes. And embryonic stem cell research and many fertility treatments. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such. :shok:
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 :shok: Shock and horror for the belief that human life is sacred and should be treated as such? Again, telling and a bit creepy.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I don't think that the father and mother should have the right to put their child to death, although apparently many Christian sects in the past did believe just that including the American Pilgrims. But, I believe that prior to birth the woman should be in charge of the decision and the doctors should not be trying to fathom something that the Church isn't even sure about. Although I wouldn't be opposed to banning partial birth abortions or even late term abortions which the State under Roe v. Wade is allowed to regulate. I think at some point along the way the mother perhaps gives up the right to terminate the pregnancy, but I do not trust a bunch of politicians in the legislature to be making that call. The Federal debate is not actually so much about whether an abortion should occur, but more about whether it gets paid for -- which means that a rich girl can have access to a safe abortion, but the poor girl doesn't.Just to clarify, you believe that banning partial-birth or late-term abortions would be a good thing, and that at "some point along the way the mother perhaps gives up her right to terminate the pregnancy" (kill her baby), but you are unsure exactly where that point is. Explain to me how you would go about determining morally where that line is (I am not looking for an analysis on the Roe and Casey standards, but your own)? When exactly does the woman's right to decide to end her child's life end? And, if you are not sure, wouldn't the prudent thing be to be as conservative as possible to ensure that an innocent "human" life is not ended?
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Shock and horror for the belief that human life is sacred and should be treated as such? Again, telling and a bit creepy.You are entitled to that opinion. However Apostles and Prophets have said otherwise. I'll stick with them.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 You are entitled to that opinion. However Apostles and Prophets have said otherwise. I'll stick with them.Well, if apostles and prophets have said something it must be true...I would rather follow my own conscience and spiritual manifestations, especially on a question of life and death. I wouldn't want to end up killing an innocent baby and be left saying, "but they said it was ok."
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Well, if apostles and prophets have said something it must be true...I would rather follow my own conscience and spiritual manifestations, especially on a question of life and death. I wouldn't want to end up killing an innocent baby and be left saying, "but they said it was ok."It's your right to hold such opinions.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 It's your right to hold such opinions.And it is your right to hold your opinions. Just like currently we live in a society that believes that a mother has the right to choose to kill her own baby. Crazy world we live in.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 And it is your right to hold your opinions. Just like currently we live in a society that believes that a mother has the right to choose to kill her own baby. Crazy world we live in.Mine seem to be held by people whom the LDS think of as Apostles and Prophets of God acting as such. But to each their own.One of the many joys of not living under a theocracy.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Mine seem to be held by people whom the LDS think of as Apostles and Prophets of God acting as such. But to each their own.One of the many joys of not living under a theocracy.One of the many joys of not living under a theocracy is the ability for a mother to choose to kill her baby and for society to protect that choice as a right? Interesting indeed. One need not live in a theocracy for abortion to be viewed as it is, the deliberate killing of an innocent baby, and recognition that human life is special and in need of protecting (certain inalienable rights, including LIFE). I can imagine a non-theocracy deciding to outlaw abortion - just like we currently outlaw the unjustified killing of another (unless you believe we currently live in a theocracy). You can't imagine a non-theocracy outlawing abortion? Must you believe in a God to believe that human life is special? Must you believe in a God to decide abortion is wrong? Edited April 4, 2013 by go_utes01
bluebell Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 Must you believe in a God to believe that human life is special? Must you believe in a God to decide abortion is wrong?That's an interesting question. I've never personally heard of an atheist that was against abortion, but it makes me wonder if there are some out there. Anyone know?
Stone holm Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 That's an interesting question.I've never personally heard of an atheist that was against abortion, but it makes me wonder if there are some out there. Anyone know?I suspect there are atheists that oppose certain types of abortion. I can certainly conceive of an atheist being very opposed to say partial birth abortions or very late term abortions. In fact, it could be argued that in theory an atheist might believe there is more at stake than a religious person who believes in an afterlife. After all for an atheist if the unborn child is terminated via an abortion after it has shown life, we really are talking about things being kaput -- where as the increasing trend in Christian thought is that the fetus would get a straight ticket to paradise. 1
Tacenda Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 I suspect there are atheists that oppose certain types of abortion. I can certainly conceive of an atheist being very opposed to say partial birth abortions or very late term abortions. In fact, it could be argued that in theory an atheist might believe there is more at stake than a religious person who believes in an afterlife. After all for an atheist if the unborn child is terminated via an abortion after it has shown life, we really are talking about things being kaput -- where as the increasing trend in Christian thought is that the fetus would get a straight ticket to paradise.You are right on. The athiest may or will have a stronger reaction to death of a baby or even an adult because in their mind it is a done deal also work on their relationships a little better because there are no second chances.
go_utes01 Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 That's an interesting question.I've never personally heard of an atheist that was against abortion, but it makes me wonder if there are some out there. Anyone know?I am definitely aware of atheists and agnostics that oppose abortion. Many atheists/agnostics are humanists and believe that human life is indeed special and deserving of special protection. For example, according to Secular Pro-Life member Julie Thielen, who identifies as a gnostic antitheist atheist, the best ways to reach secular people with the pro-life message are through biology and an appeal to human rights.“When the sperm meets the egg, a genetically complete human being is formed, and all that is required for maturation is time and nutrition,” Thielen said. “As complete human beings in the most vulnerable stages, there should be protections afforded. As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable — the young, the aged, the infirm, those who can’t speak for themselves. The unborn belong here.”
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2013 Posted April 4, 2013 One of the many joys of not living under a theocracy is the ability for a mother to choose to kill her baby and for society to protect that choice as a right? Interesting indeed. One need not live in a theocracy for abortion to be viewed as it is, the deliberate killing of an innocent baby, and recognition that human life is special and in need of protecting (certain inalienable rights, including LIFE). I can imagine a non-theocracy deciding to outlaw abortion - just like we currently outlaw the unjustified killing of another (unless you believe we currently live in a theocracy). You can't imagine a non-theocracy outlawing abortion? Must you believe in a God to believe that human life is special? Must you believe in a God to decide abortion is wrong?When that theocracy demands you do something against your morals, and they all do. What legal recourse are you going to have?I've never advocated for abortion and as a male it is highly unlikely I'll ever have one. My goal is to reduce that number to the rate of rarity. We as a country have already tried your way. The result was that rich women got the medically supervised abortion and the poor ones got a coat hanger. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. On a practical level as long as there is a need for abortion for even the rarest of occasions, there will be abortions. On a philosophical level do we really want a government so big that it can be inside every woman's uterus to make sure every pregnancy from conception goes according to government plans?There are as many different opinions on when life starts as there are religions to propound them. Scientifically speaking there is no start to life. Both the sperm and egg cells are very much alive independent of each other. Only demagogues and politicians argue that an undifferentiated clump of cells is a human life in any meaningful sense of the word.Ireland while not a theocracy is a very Catholic country. It has outlawed abortion for years. The rich Irish get abortions in nearby England and the poor ones die. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversyNo. You don't have to believe in God to think human life is special. I believe in God and I believe a human life is special. But not so special that it overrides any/every other consideration.No. You don't have to believe in God to decide abortion is wrong(for you). But your believing/deciding it doesn't obligate anyone else to believe/decide the same(for them).
Recommended Posts