Pro-Life Folks In Tx Sing "Amazing Grace," Pro-Abortion" Respond With Chant Of "Hail Satan"

[BlueDreams]

The only trouble with this is that "young and stupid" are still forming their opinions and views that will follow them when they grow "older and more radical." I'm sure a good portion of the younger protestors will continue when they are older to support abortion of 20-week old fetuses as we have in the news today. (That's five months old... a time when the fetus can literally suck their thumb, cough (my grandma's), etc.

True, they're forming their own beliefs. but I think they're mocking more the often considered vilified view of those who are pro-choice or who've had an abortion. They probably view the excess religiosity too much. Frankly, I just can't take a number of punkish kids all that serious. Plus their opinion may also alter from that age as well to something more conservative. And frankly, I don't see all that much difference between and 18 or 20 week old fetus. I'd feel a little sketch with either one for the record.

The trouble with that is a lot grow up to be older and stupid.

Yes, but i find that on either side of the line as equally capable. Both ends of the spectrum of no regulation of abortions or limitations and complete removal of abortion practices as generally stupid. My guess, considering who usually ends up swarming to protest in these things is that either side, if they had their way, would have it in these extremes in the end. So frankly, I don't find either group all that moving.

With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

Absolutely! My life would be so much better if those annoying Christians hadn't imposed their 'religious perspectives' on my free, happy ancestors:

• Thou shalt not kill.
  
• Thou shalt not steal.
  
• Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  

People can arrive at reasonable societal laws with out requiring religion.

You will also note that the third item you listed is not imposed by force. It is imposed only by non force based societal pressures.

[ERayR]

You're using some incredibly emotive language in your post. I recognise this is an issue people feel strongly about. Out of interest, you support a Mormon woman's right to an abortion based on careful/prayerful consideration of two cometing problems. But you also feel it's appropriate to legistlate against other people's decision to have an abortion?

So are you predicting the downfall of the US and European society (not to mention China) based on its growing acceptance of abortion. Do you equate Mormon abortions to sacrificing children or only those that you feel you can judge as an un-involved third party to be based on greed/lust?

I suppose we can come to a middle ground of some abortions in exceptional circumstances. Would those exceptional circumstances be limited to the following:

http://www.lds.org/t...ortion?lang=eng

On that basis, only Mormons would qualify for an abortion as they're the only ones who would council with 'local Church leaders.'

If the church accepts it's permissible in certain circumstances, should we then campaign to make the LDS standard the legal standard?

I am not going to be drug into an abortion argument any further.

You do tend to lean to the ridiculous with your arguments and suggestions.

[Hamba Tuhan]

People can arrive at reasonable societal laws with out requiring religion.

People who enjoy the benefits of living in societies based on Judeo-Christian values but who prefer to ignore the source of such an inheritance like to tell themselves this. If I remember correctly, you live in New Zealand. Before Christianity showed up, had the MÄori arrived at these laws? Was it because the people were 'unreasonable'? What about their neighbours across the Tasman Sea? In New Guinea? In Fiji? The rest of the Pacific Islands? The Americas before Columbus? Pre-Christian Africa?

I can understand why post-Christian humanists seek to ahistorically deny how thoroughly the teachings of Jehovah have transformed the world over the past 2,000 years, and especially during the past 500, but I'm not sure I understand why Latter-day Saints would follow such fashion.

You will also note that the third item you listed is not imposed by force. It is imposed only by non force based societal pressures.

You don't think the ideals of marital fidelity for both partners and pre-marital chastity were imposed by both Christianisation and European colonialisation? Or are you just talking about the situation as it has evolved after the fact in early 21st-century NZ?

Edited July 4, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

I am not going to be drug into an abortion argument any further.

You do tend to lean to the ridiculous with your arguments and suggestions.

I'm simply asking whether you are in favour or against abortion? If in favour would that be in line with the church 'allowances' or if against is that in spite of the them?

If you accept the church exceptions (which you seem to) then you need a society that will provide professional and legal abortions in a very low number of cases. Do you accept that? Do you also see that to say "I accept abortion at times on my church's understanding of when it morally right, but I want to legislate when it ok for everyone else to so it" seems an unreasonable perspective.

(Drug... Is that the American past particle of drag? I thought it was 'dragged.')

[canard78]

Cool... Japanese spam.

My favourite character: ッ it's better than ;o)

[Bikeemikey]

People who enjoy the benefits of living in societies based on Judeo-Christian values but who prefer to ignore the source of such an inheritance like to tell themselves this. If I remember correctly, you live in New Zealand. Before Christianity showed up, had the MÄori arrived at these laws? Was it because the people were 'unreasonable'? What about their neighbours across the Tasman Sea? In New Guinea? In Fiji? The rest of the Pacific Islands? The Americas before Columbus? Pre-Christian Africa?

I can understand why post-Christian humanists seek to ahistorically deny how thoroughly the teachings of Jehovah have transformed the world over the past 2,000 years, and especially during the past 500, but I'm not sure I understand why Latter-day Saints would follow such fashion.

You don't think the ideals of marital fidelity for both partners and pre-marital chastity were imposed by both Christianisation and European colonialisation? Or are you just talking about the situation as it has evolved after the fact in early 21st-century NZ?

Both modern and pre-modern societies,Christian and non-Christian societies (almost universally) have clear boundaries against stealing and murder. Many also still have force based deterrents against adultery. Islamic law is not fundamentally distinct from Judeo-Christian laws, they are just much more strict in "enforcement" than we are today.

Your selection of nation states is very narrow. Amazing non-Judeo-Christian empires have come and gone over the past 2000 years, all with laws and highly functioning societies not based on the precepts you are referring to. In fact today India and China, both subject to the rule of law, are both totally outside the Judeo-Christian context.

As for your rejoinder about adultery, I was responding specifically to your comment stating the permissibility of such an action being censured by govts. Via force. And yes, certain Maori tribes had concepts or fidelity - though I'm confused are you saying they should or shouldn't have had such concepts prior to Judeo-Christian contact?

Of course Christ's teachings have had a huge impact on the world - the invention of morality was not one of them. Moral precepts pre-dated Christs earthly ministry and have been strongly present through out history, even in societies with no or limited Judeo-Christian contact. (Moronis teaching on the light of Christ should help clear this up for you).

What Christ provided was a way back when such precepts are violated.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

So there are only 2 options? Keep quite or " force my position on others not of my faith."?

Oh well that is all I will say on this matter. Good day. I mean that sincerely

I never said keep quiet. But there are more effective ways of getting your ideas accepted than calling people names like baby killers, or intolerant religious bigots.

I always wish you the best this day and every day.

[thesometimesaint]

How do you characterize "extremists" on the pro-life side of the debate?

Are the people in the video singing "Amazing Grace" extremists?

Thanks,

-Smac

As extremists.

I have no idea. But I can think of a few more effective ways to get their ideas accepted than singing a song.

See D&C121:41

...only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you. It's abhorrent. But in the desire to explore the issue I want ask myself/you some questions.

What is the difference between 18-week abortion and the morning after pill or even a condom?

I would suggest it's simply 'affinity.'

Western society avoids eating dogs and horses because of affinity and association. But is fine with dirty/dumb animals being eaten and abused in their rearing process (pigs, cows and especially chickens). We prosecute people who treat dogs like battery farmed chickens, but stop via fast food joint for a bucket of chicken wings on the way back from the courthouse. We criticise people who put kittens in a sack with a brick in the river but we haul fish out of the sea by the 1000 and leave them gasping for breath while they suffocate.

Affinity defines us. We are barbaric to one species but treat others as almost equals.

A 18-week old foetus looks like us. Seems like a living child (even though if miscarried is not treated as such). But a single sperm looks nothing like us so the "murder" of that potential life is acceptable with a condom.

At 18 weeks gestation there is no viability outside the womb.

The morning after pill is not a abortion pill. It simply prevents ovulation.

A condom prevents sperm and eggs from meeting.

There is no affinity with eggs or sperm, and precious little after conception. The woman isn't even pregnant until implantation about a week later. The IUD prevents implantation.

Culturally I'm not in favor of eating Fido, but given the choice between eating him or starving to death. Bye Bye doggie.

If we are going to eat animals I think it would be best to treat them humanely, and kill them quickly with as little discomfort, or pain as possible. Then find a practical use for all the parts of the carcass.

At what point does the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman?

[Calm]

The morning after pill is not a abortion pill. It simply prevents ovulation.

Not quite:

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, morning-after pills may act by one or more of the following actions: delaying or preventing ovulation, blocking fertilization, or keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. However, recent evidence strongly suggests that Plan B One-Step and Next Choice do not inhibit implantation. It's not clear if the same is true for Ella.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190/DSECTION=why%2Dits%2Ddone

[bluebell]

Not quite:

http://www.mayoclini...ON=why-its-done

They basically do the exact same thing as regular birth control (which also works to stop implantation as one way to prevent pregnancy).

[bluebell]

And is that through agency/spirit being present? Or is that only biological reflexes?

No one knows.

[bluebell]

At what point does the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman?

My belief is that it is at the point that the woman consciously chooses to engage in an activity which has any percentage where pregnancy can occur. We all should have the right to choose, but I don't support the idea that women should have the right, not only to choose, but the right to then for go the consequences of that choice because they don't like it.

[Calm]

What if she has tried to do everything possible save abstinence to prevent pregnancy, even sterilization...which fails in a small number of cases?

Is it just engaging in consensual sexual behaviour of any sort that creates it that gives a fetus rights or can consensual sexual behaviour with a good faith attempt to prevent pregnancy give her some say as well?

[bluebell]

What if she has tried to do everything possible save abstinence to prevent pregnancy, even sterilization...which fails in a small number of cases?

Is it just engaging in consensual sexual behaviour of any sort that creates it that gives a fetus rights or can consensual sexual behaviour with a good faith attempt to prevent pregnancy give her some say as well?

Personally, I don't believe it does. In my opinion, she already had her say when she decided to have sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility. Except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is seriously at risk, I don't personally believe that abortion is ever justifiable. I realize that other reasonable people may disagree with me.

[teddyaware]

What if she has tried to do everything possible save abstinence to prevent pregnancy, even sterilization...which fails in a small number of cases?

Is it just engaging in consensual sexual behaviour of any sort that creates it that gives a fetus rights or can consensual sexual behaviour with a good faith attempt to prevent pregnancy give her some say as well?

Perhaps the perplexities of the interesting conundrum you pose here are some of the reasons why pre-marital sex, consensual or otherwise, is considered a great sin in the eyes of God -- second only to murder. If the parties that could otherwise be potentially involved in this sinful behavior wisely choose to not willfully violate God's commandment on this sacred issue, they will never have to worry about having to agonizingly chose between life or death for an innocent third party who is not mature enough to have its desires on the subject made known.

Edited July 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Misfire. Ignore

Edited July 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Personally, I don't believe it does. In my opinion, she already had her say when she decided to have sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility. Except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is seriously at risk, I don't personally believe that abortion is ever justifiable. I realize that other reasonable people may disagree with me.

It is a real grey area for me. I think I would feel differently if it was recreational sex outside of marriage than if someone was in a committed monogamous marriage but for some reason didn't want to have children. Not saying I would say an abortion was always okay in those conditions, just that it would shift the weight somewhat.

[Calm]

Perhaps the perplexities of the interesting conundrum you pose here are some of the reasons why pre-marital sex, consensual or otherwise, is considered a great sin in the eyes of God -- second only to murder. If the parties that could otherwise be potentially involved in this sinful behavior wisely choose to not willfully violate God's commandment on this sacred issue, they will never have to worry about having to agonizingly chose between life or death for an innocent third party who is not mature enough to have its desires on the subject made known.

But there are plenty of people in marriage who choose to limit children. Do you see them being held to a different standard?

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps the perplexities of the interesting conundrum you pose here are some of the reasons why pre-marital sex, consensual or otherwise, is considered a great sin in the eyes of God -- second only to murder. If the parties that could otherwise be potentially involved in this sinful behavior wisely choose to not willfully violate God's commandment on this sacred issue, they will never have to worry about having to agonizingly chose between life or death for an innocent third party who is not mature enough to have its desires on the subject made known.

I dont believe the scriptures do claim sex outside of marriage is second only to murder in terms of sin. Not that ranking sin really makes sense.

[teddyaware]

I dont believe the scriptures do claim sex outside of marriage is second only to murder in terms of sin. Not that ranking sin really makes sense.

The Prophet Alma, in Alma 39, said the following to his son, Corianton, who had committed sexual transgression:

"3...Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanite, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?"

[teddyaware]

But there are plenty of people in marriage who choose to limit children. Do you see them being held to a different standard?

All I will say on this point is this: Someone could offer me a trillion dollars tax free and I would never even be slightly tempted to perform an abortion (i.e. under active the guidance of a well-trained surgeon). The taking of sacred and innocent human life is the most dreadful thing I could imagine doing. My conscience would torture me in exquisite agony night and day; I would never be able find a moment's peace or happiness for the rest of my life. Truly, It would be a fate much worse that capital punishment. Edited July 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

All I will say on this point is this: Someone could offer me a trillion dollars tax free and I would never even be slightly tempted to perform an abortion (i.e. under active the guidance of a well-trained surgeon). The taking of sacred and innocent human life is the most dreadful thing I could imagine doing. My conscience would torture me in exquisite agony night and day; I would never be able find a moments peace or happiness for the rest of my life. Truly, It would be a fate much worse that capital punishment.

What if your wife's life was at risk?

[teddyaware]

What if your wife's life was at risk?

Two sacred lives of infinite potential are at risk in this scenario. I've heard of mothers who were faced with this choice and gave up their lives to bring their child into the world; I've heard of others who made the opposite choice. Only after much soul searching, studying the issues out in a fully informed way, looking at the available options from all sides; and after much fervent prayer should the most solemn choice be made: end the pregnancy, the mother opts to give up her life for the child; take the risk to go full term and attempt to deliver the child. If the listed steps are followed faithfully, diligently, lovingly and prayerfully and a final decision is made, none of these three choices are wrong if the Spirit whispers a measure of comfort and peace to the soul.

Edited July 4, 2013 by teddyaware