Same Sex Marriage Vs. Convenience Abortion - A Question Of Priority And Societal Harm

[thesometimesaint]

Criminal Law is a small specialty field in law.   

 

Breaking most laws creates civil penalties, not criminal ones.

 

Not really. Even in Corporate Law violating the terms of a legally binding agreement can result in civil damages.

[Danzo]

Not really. Even in Corporate Law violating the terms of a legally binding agreement can result in civil damages.

 

but not criminal penalties.

 

I found this website that  talks briefly about the difference between civil law and criminal law    http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

Edited September 28, 2015 by Danzo

[jkwilliams]

But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

 

Here are some ways off the top of my head that could limit abortion without making it a crime.

 

1.     Suspend doctor's licenses who perform abortions

 

2.     Allow the father to sue the mother (or doctor)

 

3.     restrict business licenses to the clinics that provide abortions.

 

Each of these would in essence make abortion illegal without making it a crime.

 

I am sure other ideas could be thought of.

 

Sure, but given that most pro-life groups support extending "personhood," including civil rights, to fetuses, it would require a major rewrite of criminal codes to make abortion a civil matter. From what I can tell, most pro-life groups want to criminalize abortion and prosecute those who engage in it. 

 

Of course, this is never going to happen. Abortion is not a real political issue anymore but is a "wedge" issue used to fire up both sides of the debate, when there is no chance of any significant changes to current laws. 

[Guest]

The LDS Church has been loud in its opposition to legalized same sex marriage - perhaps most famously (infamously?) in its support for "Proposition 8" in California a few years back.  They've had company, of course.  Plenty of Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christians have endeavored to hold the line for "traditional marriage." 

 

But while LDS have been loud & clear on the same sex marriage issue--they're relatively-speaking quiet on the question of legalized abortion where the mother's health is not in question (what I'm calling for purposes of this thread, "convenience abortion").  This is not to say LDS are in favor of abortion (they aren't)--but they clearly haven't shown the same political interest/energy in the matter of legalized convenience abortion.  And certainly not in comparison to Evangelicals and Catholics. 

 

Why is that? 

 

--Erik

Are you kidding, you are asking which is worse, killing a baby vs sexual behavior. The Church is clear on abortion and Prop 8 was on the ballot. If "Abortion" was on th ballot, you need not worry, money and voices would be heard in every State. As for why, we are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction to EV's and Catholics.

[Kenngo1969]

Oh I still think the threat to religious liberty due to SSM is overblown. So someone has to bake a cake for SSM marriage? Was their religious liberty really denied? Should an evangelical baker be able to deny baking a cake for a Mormon temple marriage if it is to offensive to their religious views?

OK.  Many of the Brethren, in good conscience and in good faith, having studied both for the length of time necessary to acquire impeccable legal credentials and likely having plumbed the depths of the probable legal implications of gay marriage for religious liberty specifrically, disagree with you.  I'll cast my lot with them.  As for coerced cake-baking, as much as I fear that issue has entered this category ( ) and as many times as I've set forth my own views on that and similar issues, I welcome the opportunity to do so again here.  (Though I concede that the Brethren's legal acumen, time studying the issue, and so on, dwarf mine.) 

 

If I were a provider of goods or services, and if someone asked me to provide those goods or services for a same-sex wedding, although I do not support gay marriage, I would likely do so.  Nothing in my religious belief says I must compel others to accept my paradigm, I would be loathe to foment bad will among potential customers and others, and I'm too practical to lose business in such a case.  That said, I understand the objection of those who believe that being compelled to provide such goods or services would violate their religious conscience, and I support their right to refuse to provide them for a same-sex wedding for that reason.

 

However, I would still allow gays and lesbians denied such goods or services on the basis of the provider's deeply-held religious beliefs to sue.  But I would require the couple denied service to prove, by the relevant evidentiary standard (preponderance of the evidence, probably, meaning "50%, plus a smidge" [my phrase]), that their efforts to obtain similar goods or services at a similar price were unavailing, and I would also limit recovery in such cases to the difference between what a refusing service provider would have charged them and what an accepting service provider actually did charge them, along with reasonable related services such as travel.  Limiting recovery in such a manner would drastically cut down on the use of gay law-fare as a means to pulverize recalcitrant providers of goods and services into submission, and it would drastically reduce the publicity that often is associated with such cases. 

 

To those who argue that such a solution as the one I have proposed is a step back to the segregation and discrimination of the Jim Crow south, I would argue that isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination is different in quality and in kind from its widespread, entrenched, formerly-legally-sanctioned, de jure counterpart that the Fourteenth Amendment now prohibits.  Under the solution I have proposed, a business owner is free to exercise his deeply-held religious convictions by not being forced to provide goods or services he feels would violate those convictions, while a gay couple, by contrast, is free to seek out a willing provider (though the business owner may, on occasion, be required to pay a modest premium for exercising his rights in this manner).  This solution recognizes the nominal injury done those who are denied goods and services because of their sexual orientation, while also recognizing a proprietor's right freely to exercise his religion in the manner I believe those who crafted the religion clauses of the First Amendment intended.  I do not believe that any solution other than the one I have proposed adequately protects the latter.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Five Solas]

Are you kidding, you are asking which is worse, killing a baby vs sexual behavior. The Church is clear on abortion and Prop 8 was on the ballot. If "Abortion" was on th ballot, you need not worry, money and voices would be heard in every State. As for why, we are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction to EV's and Catholics.

On the same ballot as Prop 8 was Prop 4.  Do you remember what Proposition 4 was about, Pa Pa?  No, you don't.  The LDS Church didn't care about that one.  But you would never have posted the above if you did--because Prop 4 was... wait for it... a measure intended to impede access to abortion, specifically requiring parental notification for minors.

 

Abortion was on that very ballot, Pa Pa.  And the LDS Church leadership chose to ignore it and concentrate their resources on the SSM rollback initiative instead.  Are you surprised and/or disappointed to learn this little fact? 

 

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

Sure, but given that most pro-life groups support extending "personhood," including civil rights, to fetuses, it would require a major rewrite of criminal codes to make abortion a civil matter. From what I can tell, most pro-life groups want to criminalize abortion and prosecute those who engage in it. 

 

Major re-write?  With all due respect, I doubt it.  For any codes that don't already include such a provision (which I would have to think would be a small number, but even if that's not true, the re-write itself still wouldn't be that big of a deal), all legislators would have to do is to insert a provision stating, "For purposes of this part [the statute being qualified or revised] [insert crime here, whether it be murder, manslaughter, et cetera] does not include the termination of a pregnancy [insert whatever qualifying language the legislature agrees upon here.]"*

 

*This comes with the usual caveat: I am not a lawyer.  Anyone with questions about the provisions of the criminal code of a particular jurisdiction should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in question.  (Lord, I never tire of issuing that qualifier.    Whether I ever practice law a single day in my life or not, it might be worth it to try to get licensed, if only to have the possibility to be able to stop using it!!!!!!!!!!!!   )

Edited September 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

The more I look at it, the less I see societal harm coming from same-sex marriage. It changes nothing for heterosexual marriages, has no impact on religious teachings and practices, and promotes commitment among gay couples. I don't understand the fear-mongering about how same-sex marriage is going to destroy society as we know it.

 

It won't be the end of society but I am concerned about the effects. Then again, it might be a passing thing. Who knows?

[carbon dioxide]

On the same ballot as Prop 8 was Prop 4.  Do you remember what Proposition 4 was about, Pa Pa?  No, you don't.  The LDS Church didn't care about that one.  But you would never have posted the above if you did--because Prop 4 was... wait for it... a measure intended to impede access to abortion, specifically requiring parental notification for minors.

 

Abortion was on that very ballot, Pa Pa.  And the LDS Church leadership chose to ignore it and concentrate their resources on the SSM rollback initiative instead.  Are you surprised and/or disappointed to learn this little fact? 

 

--Erik

The Church chooses to "ignore" a lot of issues that are not on the ballot.  Perhaps if the Catholic organizations did not invite the LDS Church in the campaign for Prop 8, the Church would have done a lot less on it.

 

[The Nehor]

The Church chooses to "ignore" a lot of issues that are not on the ballot.  Perhaps if the Catholic organizations did not invite the LDS Church in the campaign for Prop 8, the Church would have done a lot less on it.

While true being invited to something does not really mitigate the agency used to participate.

[Robert F. Smith]

But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

 

Here are some ways off the top of my head that could limit abortion without making it a crime.

 

1.     Suspend doctor's licenses who perform abortions

 

2.     Allow the father to sue the mother (or doctor)

 

3.     restrict business licenses to the clinics that provide abortions.

 

Each of these would in essence make abortion illegal without making it a crime.

 

I am sure other ideas could be thought of.

Yes, there are manifold ways of imposing Sharia Law.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sure, but given that most pro-life groups support extending "personhood," including civil rights, to fetuses, it would require a major rewrite of criminal codes to make abortion a civil matter. From what I can tell, most pro-life groups want to criminalize abortion and prosecute those who engage in it. 

 

Of course, this is never going to happen. Abortion is not a real political issue anymore but is a "wedge" issue used to fire up both sides of the debate, when there is no chance of any significant changes to current laws. 

What is odd is that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of corporations (Citizens United), but not of fertilized human ova.

[Five Solas]

The Church chooses to "ignore" a lot of issues that are not on the ballot.  Perhaps if the Catholic organizations did not invite the LDS Church in the campaign for Prop 8, the Church would have done a lot less on it.

 

"The Catholics made us do it."  I can predict a lot of the responses I get, but I have to confess--I didn't see this one coming...

:0)

 

--Erik

[jkwilliams]

What is odd is that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of corporations (Citizens United), but not of fertilized human ova.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but OK.

[jkwilliams]

It won't be the end of society but I am concerned about the effects. Then again, it might be a passing thing. Who knows?

I don't see any effects worth being concerned about, but to quote Neil Young, "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again."

[KevinG]

I must admit my reaction upon seeing this "poll" was...  "are you kidding me?"  

 

The LDS Church is very clear on teaching the law of Chastity which finds abortion and homosexuality sinful.  The whole reason the church took a position on Prop. 8 is because it was a current political debate, not because there was some prioritization of favorite sins on the part of the brethren.

 

A more reasonable comparison would be the LDS Church position during the Roe v. Wade decision with Prop 8 when it was a ballot initiative.  Even then church actions regarding a court decision vs. a ballot initiative is a strained comparison.

[The Nehor]

Yes, there are manifold ways of imposing Sharia Law.

The Islamophobia is this country is deeply disturbing. We have a local politician easily garnering attention by riding the wave of this fear. She is boldly fighting the imposition of Sharia Law in a nearby community. Only thing is no one can find anyone trying to implement it. Still works.

[The Nehor]

I don't see any effects worth being concerned about, but to quote Neil Young, "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again."

I do not either yet but I trust the apostles know more then I do. History also shows that non-Judeo-Christian cultures have allowed same sex relationships before and then later got rid of them.

All this has happened before and all of this will happen again.

[thesometimesaint]

Facts are an inconvenient thing.

[Five Solas]

I must admit my reaction upon seeing this "poll" was...  "are you kidding me?"  

 

The LDS Church is very clear on teaching the law of Chastity which finds abortion and homosexuality sinful.  The whole reason the church took a position on Prop. 8 is because it was a current political debate, not because there was some prioritization of favorite sins on the part of the brethren.

...

You would have us believe Prop 4--a measure on the same ballot as Prop 8--a measure which would have impeded access to abortion, that somehow 4 wasn't current but that 8 was current?

 

Forgive me, KevinG, but that explanation really makes no sense.  

 

--Erik 

[KevinG]

You would have us believe Prop 4--a measure on the same ballot as Prop 8--a measure which would have impeded access to abortion, that somehow 4 wasn't current but that 8 was current?

 

Forgive me, KevinG, but that explanation really makes no sense.  

 

--Erik 

 

You see what you want to see.  Prop 4 was about informing parents about parental notification for abortion.  I'm sure the LDS Church was in favor of parental access, but even more in favor of not having abortion on demand.  It was not as pivotal and issue as legalizing gay marriage, which as we have seen has had a very significant impact on the law of the land regarding marriage and what defines a family legally.

 

Presenting this as which moral issue was more important to the LDS leadership is what really makes no sense. 

[rockpond]

You see what you want to see.  Prop 4 was about informing parents about parental notification for abortion.  I'm sure the LDS Church was in favor of parental access, but even more in favor of not having abortion on demand.  It was not as pivotal and issue as legalizing gay marriage, which as we have seen has had a very significant impact on the law of the land regarding marriage and what defines a family legally.

 

Presenting this as which moral issue was more important to the LDS leadership is what really makes no sense. 

 

Yes, Prop 8 was important because it played a significant role in moving the country to marriage equality for gays.

[KevinG]

Yes, Prop 8 was important because it played a significant role in moving the country to marriage equality for gays.

 

Yes I agree.  The whole issue was polarizing, and arguably had a larger impact on changing current law and society than parental consent legislation.

 

No matter which side of the argument you supported.

[rockpond]

Yes I agree.  The whole issue was polarizing, and arguably had a larger impact on changing current law and society than parental consent legislation.

 

No matter which side of the argument you supported.

 

But just to clarify -- and bring it back around to the OP:

 

While Prop 8 *may* have been more significant than Prop 4, abortion is still a vastly more serious issue for society than gay marriage.  Full stop.

 

(I don't want anyone to think I was backing away from my original answer.)

[carbon dioxide]

You would have us believe Prop 4--a measure on the same ballot as Prop 8--a measure which would have impeded access to abortion, that somehow 4 wasn't current but that 8 was current?

 

Forgive me, KevinG, but that explanation really makes no sense.  

 

--Erik 

How much would it really have impeded abortion?  Plus there is always the courts throw out Prop 4 like Prop 8 anyway.  One has to pick their battles and perhaps the Church felt that the battle for Prop 8 might be more fruitful and lasting than Prop 4.