go_utes01 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I absolutely agree with the Church on its position on abortion. What I am in internal conflict about is making our Church rules mandatory on others not of our particular faith.Do you feel the same about other laws that protect the vulnerable? Should we not force our beliefs on others by outlawing child abuse or assault, etc.?
thesometimesaint Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Do you feel the same about other laws that protect the vulnerable? Should we not force our beliefs on others by outlawing child abuse or assault, etc.?No we should not. The same force of law can and has been used to force the Saints to not practice their religion as they choose. The law should serve a secular purpose, and not be overtly sectarian.
blueadept Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Were I a woman who was raped and became pregnant thereby, I believe I would carry the child to term, and I believe I would raise the child myself. Since I am not a woman, I can only be theoretical about it.While I would agree with the first part about keeping the child, I don't believe it's even remotely reasonable to have the mother raise the child since she would see the rapist's eyes every time she looked at her own child. There's nothing wrong with adoption in these cases. There's a wonderful youth speaker by the name of Pam Stenzel who talks to about 500,000 youth a year world-wide about issues in regards to their sexuality and the importance of abstinence. One personal fact that she brings up is that she knows her father was a rapist and that she hopes one day to be able to thank her biological mom for giving her up for adoption and to be raised in a loving family. I would recommend any of her videos in regards to the importantance of abstinence for our teenagers.www.pamstenzel.comA wonderful and dynamic speaker for our youth.
go_utes01 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) No we should not. The same force of law can and has been used to force the Saints to not practice their religion as they choose. The law should serve a secular purpose, and not be overtly sectarian.What about the secular purpose of not killing babies? Or do you think that is an overtly sectarian position? My position is not at all dependent upon my theological beliefs (as you have pointed out my views on abortion are different than the church I am a member of). Many non-believers hold the same view on abortion, for example the website linked above about the non-aggression principle. Edited April 8, 2013 by go_utes01
bcuzbcuz Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Are you really so short sighted as to not be able to see that there are more and better alternatives than abortion to this problem? I fully support the Church policy on abortion but can not see any way your scenario could fit into this policy.Tell me your "better alternatives".
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I absolutely agree with the Church on its position on abortion. What I am in internal conflict about is making our Church rules mandatory on others not of our particular faith.What is so funny is you seem to not have issues when other foist thier beliefs onto us. Good greif.
bcuzbcuz Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 While obviously a tragic story, I think you could find many tragic stories regarding child abuse - do you think that justifies the preemptive killing of the innocent baby? Why not argue for better law enforcement against the abusive man or oversight by child protective services, or aid in helping the young girl get out of the abusive situation? Should the young mother be punished? Just like in all criminal prosecutions there are layers of protections. Prosecutors have discretion on if/what charges to bring. Also, there would be mitigating circumstances, like the age of the offender, her psychological condition, etc. However, the doctor that performed the illegal abortion likely for profit is a different question. In the end, while there are always difficult individual cases (for all criminal prosecutions), I believe that killing innocent babies is evil (it is sad that many try to obfuscate that simple reality and continually try to complicate the situation in order to assuage their conscience on the matter) and should be be punished as a deterrent. I do not want to live in a society that believes that a mother's choice to kill her own baby should be a protected right. We would not say that a mother's choice to kill her baby a month after the child is born (even in a tragic scenario like you painted - if the young mother realized that her living situation was terrible and that the child may get injured, would she be justified in preemptively killing her one or two month old?) should be protected, why do we believe that it should be protected prior to birth? I believe it is simple (black and white). Evil is evil and as a society we should not protect people's "rights" to inflict harm on others - including the unborn. I agree that there are shades of gray and individual cases may be difficult, but that is true in the implementation of all laws.All you are saying is that the threat of punishment for abortion will cure the problem. And that any in discrepancies in the facts of the matter will be solved judiciously in court. You display a lack of nuance and an unwavering faith in the court system, which leads me to believe you have no real experience, either with unwanted pregnancy nor with the judicial system.
go_utes01 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) All you are saying is that the threat of punishment for abortion will cure the problem. And that any in discrepancies in the facts of the matter will be solved judiciously in court. You display a lack of nuance and an unwavering faith in the court system, which leads me to believe you have no real experience, either with unwanted pregnancy nor with the judicial system.I am actually an attorney and a father of three, so neither is the case. In fact, it is looking at my children that prompts my beliefs about the sacredness of human life and the desire to live in a society that does not protect the "right" of a mother to choose to kill an innocent baby. While I do not have "unwavering faith" in the judicial system, I still believe that it is the best check on unwanted behavior we have - when education, parenting, religion, moral teachings, etc. fail. Are you against using the judicial system in the case of rape, murder, or child abuse? Or is it just when speaking about violence against the unborn? Edited April 8, 2013 by go_utes01
Stone holm Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 I am actually an attorney and a father of three, so neither is the case. In fact, it is looking at my children that prompts my beliefs about the sacredness of human life and the desire to live in a society that does not protect the "right" of a mother to choose to kill an innocent baby. While I do not have "unwavering faith" in the judicial system, I still believe that it is the best check on unwanted behavior we have - when education, parenting, religion, moral teachings, etc. fail. Are you against using the judicial system in the case of rape, murder, or child abuse? Or is it just when speaking about violence against the unborn?Okay, that makes two of us, I am an attorney the father of seven, and the grandfather of twelve. And the eternal husband of a deceased wife who died because she chose to not have them induce labor after her water broke for fear the baby would be at risk. Neither she, nor I , believed then, nor do I now believe, that the government has the right to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the woman until that baby is born. Period, end of discussion. The Church does not recognize that a fetus is a child, if they did they would allow Temple work for stillborns. In addition, the Church allows numerous exceptions to carry a child to term. Be that as it may, this is not a place where the government should be intruding into the life of the mother. If she makes the wrong call then that is between her, her Bishop and the Lord -- not some county prosecutor.
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 What is so funny is you seem to not have issues when other foist thier beliefs onto us. Good greif.If you haven't noticed I have no problem with telling others what I believe. I have called to task, on this very MB, anyone whom tries to tell me what I believe. be they Church member or nonmember alike. Truth be told I am egocentric enough to be more interested in what I believe than in what anyone else thinks about what I believe. If you don't believe me just ask me.
go_utes01 Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Okay, that makes two of us, I am an attorney the father of seven, and the grandfather of twelve. And the eternal husband of a deceased wife who died because she chose to not have them induce labor after her water broke for fear the baby would be at risk. Neither she, nor I , believed then, nor do I now believe, that the government has the right to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the woman until that baby is born. Period, end of discussion. The Church does not recognize that a fetus is a child, if they did they would allow Temple work for stillborns. In addition, the Church allows numerous exceptions to carry a child to term. Be that as it may, this is not a place where the government should be intruding into the life of the mother. If she makes the wrong call then that is between her, her Bishop and the Lord -- not some county prosecutor.I am sorry for your loss. Explain to me why you make a distinction between allowing the government to intrude in the life of the mother after the child is born, but not prior to the child being born? Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Prior to the child being born, if she harms the child that should be between the woman, her Bishop, and the Lord (I notice the husband/father should not have a role in concerning the life of his child in your estimation), but if she harms her baby after the child is born, then you believe the county prosecutor should be involved? Edited April 9, 2013 by go_utes01
thesometimesaint Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Okay, that makes two of us, I am an attorney the father of seven, and the grandfather of twelve. And the eternal husband of a deceased wife who died because she chose to not have them induce labor after her water broke for fear the baby would be at risk. Neither she, nor I , believed then, nor do I now believe, that the government has the right to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the woman until that baby is born. Period, end of discussion. The Church does not recognize that a fetus is a child, if they did they would allow Temple work for stillborns. In addition, the Church allows numerous exceptions to carry a child to term. Be that as it may, this is not a place where the government should be intruding into the life of the mother. If she makes the wrong call then that is between her, her Bishop and the Lord -- not some county prosecutor.While I'm not a lawyer, nor do play one on television. I do agree.
Stone holm Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 I am sorry for your loss. Explain to me why you make a distinction between allowing the government to intrude in the life of the mother after the child is born, but not prior to the child being born? Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Prior to the child being born, if she harms the child that should be between the woman, her Bishop, and the Lord (I notice the husband/father should not have a role in concerning the life of his child in your estimation), but if she harms her baby after the child is born, then you believe the county prosecutor should be involved?Once the baby is born alive then it has the same rights as any other citizen. It may sound arbitrary, but the Church draws the exact same distinction with regards to Temple rites. Once the baby is born there is no longer any possiblity that it is having a direct impact on the life of the mother, until that moment it has a very direct impact on the life of the mother. My personal feelings are that abortion for convenience is never justified and that a woman who engages in such an abortion puts her salvation in jeopardy -- by convenience I mean one that does not fall within one of the exceptions. i also do not have a major problem with the way that it was handled under Roe v. Wade which probably comes closer to your thinking in that although the Supreme Court did not recognize any rights in the fetus, they recognized that the State might have the right to intervene and used a viability standard. My current wife is not keen on the idea of the government being involved in the decision making, but has not much sympathy for the woman who waits into the third trimester to make the decision and is opposed to partial birth abortions (which I guess I am as well). But there are so many completely insensitive morons running around out there in politics right now that we both feel very uncomfortable with the government laying down restrictions -- we believe it better to leave it to the woman and her husband. We are also both opposed to the "conception" definition that is being jockied around because that would technically outlaw the pill -- what we really don't need in this society is anymore unplanned and unwanted births.
go_utes01 Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Once the baby is born alive then it has the same rights as any other citizen. It may sound arbitrary, but the Church draws the exact same distinction with regards to Temple rites. Once the baby is born there is no longer any possiblity that it is having a direct impact on the life of the mother, until that moment it has a very direct impact on the life of the mother. My personal feelings are that abortion for convenience is never justified and that a woman who engages in such an abortion puts her salvation in jeopardy -- by convenience I mean one that does not fall within one of the exceptions. i also do not have a major problem with the way that it was handled under Roe v. Wade which probably comes closer to your thinking in that although the Supreme Court did not recognize any rights in the fetus, they recognized that the State might have the right to intervene and used a viability standard. My current wife is not keen on the idea of the government being involved in the decision making, but has not much sympathy for the woman who waits into the third trimester to make the decision and is opposed to partial birth abortions (which I guess I am as well). But there are so many completely insensitive morons running around out there in politics right now that we both feel very uncomfortable with the government laying down restrictions -- we believe it better to leave it to the woman and her husband. We are also both opposed to the "conception" definition that is being jockied around because that would technically outlaw the pill -- what we really don't need in this society is anymore unplanned and unwanted births.Why not just say what we don't need in this society is anymore unwanted children to justify the killing of children after they are born - seems like that would be better for society, right? I still have not heard your reason for the arbitrary line of birth to afford a human life meaning and protection. Because the Church says so, is not sufficient for me - maybe it is for you. I have seen you in other threads arguing that overtly religious justifications are not sufficient. Please explain your position from a scientific point of view. An abortion indisputably kills an innocent human life. Do you believe that a society has a duty to protect innocent human life? Why are you ok with "insensitive morons" making laws/regulations dealing with protection of children post-birth, but not pre-birth?This has run its course.
Recommended Posts