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

[lowroom]

Ok so I did not actually answer the question. If repentance is easier inside the body than outside of it, the two most important variables are how we get a body in this life and how we leave the body. By virtue of that murder is a more difficult problem to clear up than SSM. I am just not clear that all abortion is muder and the allowance by the church for specific circumstances seems to back that up. It would seem that the repentance process to return from SSM or an abortion would be similar but likely more difficult from SSM as the attraction continues whereas an abortion it a distinct decision point that is not necessarily an ongoing sin.

[california boy]

Ok so I did not actually answer the question. If repentance is easier inside the body than outside of it, the two most important variables are how we get a body in this life and how we leave the body. By virtue of that murder is a more difficult problem to clear up than SSM. I am just not clear that all abortion is muder and the allowance by the church for specific circumstances seems to back that up. It would seem that the repentance process to return from SSM or an abortion would be similar but likely more difficult from SSM as the attraction continues whereas an abortion it a distinct decision point that is not necessarily an ongoing sin.

Except that most people including general authorities think that being attracted to the same sex simply disappears once we die.  It is not something that has to be overcome.

[lowroom]

Except that most people including general authorities think that being attracted to the same sex simply disappears once we die. It is not something that has to be overcome.

I am open to this idea if you have some sources for me to look at. It seems to fly in the face of the doctrine in Alma 34:34

"for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

[Hillel2]

I understand that someone may personally hate abortion. However, it appears that we are somewhat unclear about when a body and spirit are fully linked to the point that terminating the physical vessel results in the end of a person's second estate. The example given that a woman who has had an abortion can be baptized without the same level of clearance as a person convicted of manslaughter is telling.

3 Nephi 1:13 is frequently cited where Christ visits and states "On the morrow come I into the world". If he can leave his physical tabernacle one day prior to birth when we have no evidence of him being two places at once after his birth until after his death. Is it possible that the spirit and body are not inextricably connected until the first breath outside the mother's body?

I would never argue that it is ok to perform a partial birth abortion without a better understanding.

However I also have a hard time believing that a zygote (morning after pill), blastula or even a somitogenesis stage embryo is a person.

While it was hard for my wife and I to experience a miscarriage early in her first trimester I have never assumed that was a child of our Heavenly Father and the only chance that spirit had to enter the world.

[Hillel2]

Hi Lowroom. I'm interested in how You would address the following thought since it pops up frequently in the abortion debate. If we determine that the morality of abortion is contingent upon the personhood of a complete human entity we may never come to any kind of agreement on what that means. One says zygote, one says brainwaves, one says birth not to mention those who look to unprovables like ensoulment. The philosopher Pete singer establishes a plausible definition of personhood that doesn't kick in until the child reaches about 2-3years...allowing parents to invoke a right to infanticide.

Given that we cant agree on what makes a person, would it not be best to assume personhood from conception lest we unwittingly kill a person? Is it not better to err on the side of caution where a person's existence is plausible.

Without wishing to get into a policy discussion, the main stimulus behind abortion is that its a solution to the problem of kids whose existence poses economic and social problems to families and society. Sadly we've decided its an acceptable solution. Now the reason i bring that up is... Imagine the whole economy comes crashing down in future...how long before desparate people start practcing infanticide and more on the grounds that their immature children are not really complete persons???

From a pragmatic point of view it seems we must equate personhood (as a continous indivisible process) with conception. Otherwise a lot of us might see OUR personhood right to bodily integrity taken away in a crisis.

What do you rhink?

[thesometimesaint]

Hi Lowroom. I'm interested in how You would address the following thought since it pops up frequently in the abortion debate. If we determine that the morality of abortion is contingent upon the personhood of a complete human entity we may never come to any kind of agreement on what that means. One says zygote, one says brainwaves, one says birth not to mention those who look to unprovables like ensoulment. The philosopher Pete singer establishes a plausible definition of personhood that doesn't kick in until the child reaches about 2-3years...allowing parents to invoke a right to infanticide.

Given that we cant agree on what makes a person, would it not be best to assume personhood from conception lest we unwittingly kill a person? Is it not better to err on the side of caution where a person's existence is plausible.

Without wishing to get into a policy discussion, the main stimulus behind abortion is that its a solution to the problem of kids whose existence poses economic and social problems to families and society. Sadly we've decided its an acceptable solution. Now the reason i bring that up is... Imagine the whole economy comes crashing down in future...how long before desparate people start practcing infanticide and more on the grounds that their immature children are not really complete persons???

From a pragmatic point of view it seems we must equate personhood (as a continous indivisible process) with conception. Otherwise a lot of us might see OUR personhood right to bodily integrity taken away in a crisis.

What do you rhink?

 

Logical fallacy of slippery slope.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Hillel2]

Logical fallacy of slippery slope.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Hillel2]

Hello Sometimessaint. If you wouldn't mind expanding on this particular sslope fallacy as it applies to the abortion issue, i would be most appreciative...in all sincerity. When i argue a point, i like to dot my i's and cross my t's.

Is the argument for this particular issue that it is one of unwaranted fear mongering? With great respect i would take issue with that. it appears personhood has increasingly been expanded to wider and wider circles of humanity. The expansion seems to follow the line of economic devt (i.e. More affluent societies can afford to be more generous in extending personhood rights to previously excluded categories of human beings)

It stands to readon that, given a regression in living standards we might revert to the more exclucivist models...it is common in hard times for infanticide to go up. Would You be of the opinion that this is not a reasonable concern?

OTOH, My feeling is that personhood extension is itself fallacious. We cant agree. Therefore, a right to life has to be contingent on something besides personhood... Otherwise there's lots of precedent to start excluding people from that right. The only objective secular criterion i can think of would be humanity itself coupled with the capacity to develope further.....no matter what, the zygote is a complete human entity generally capable of devt. i would argue That's enough to warrant special consideration and protection

Am i naif enough to think that such a guarantee will change a great deal in good times or in bad? It probably wouldnt reduce the practice as much as one would like...although we pass laws to set minimal standards of behaviour all the time knowing we will break them.

The real cure is in eliminating the reasons why people engage in the practice. Once those reasons are gone, what reason would one have to terminate a pregnancy (certain situations in extremis being accounted for). I would argue we all need to step up to the plate so that no one thinks abortion is a necessary solution. Of course, that is not a popular solution and so here we are...

Humans are simply too good at finding really good reasons for practices we have the means to eliminate...its also clear that given provocation, means and license, we'll push each other over that slope awfully fast. :-)

Thank You.

[Calm]

Except that most people including general authorities think that being attracted to the same sex simply disappears once we die. It is not something that has to be overcome.

Perhaps it is my own bias, but I've always interpreted the remarks to apply to the same process as all attractions (to people or things or behaviours) that impede progression and therefore they only disappear when the individual willing lays them aside.

If one has exercised control on such attractions in this life, then they may be blessed with their removal immediately but if not, if they have ignored (as in not nurtured them, but not cared enough to control them either) or nurtured them, it will take time to change the heart and mind.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

Does the LDS Church equivocate when not objecting to abortion in cases of incest, rape, or threat to life of mother?  Is our moral sense dulled by such allowances?  Or should we go whole hog?

I don't count those cases as problematic. I'll equivocate in that I can't tell which responsible parties obtain God's will for the decision and which use the policy as the letter and not the spirit of the law. In either case, I think the moral sense is established before the decision is obtained and enacted, and continues its direction afterward.

Wha . . . ?  Not sure I follow you, CV.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

On the contrary, this was an issue which needed to be decided, and the LDS Church conveniently helped decide the ultimate issue.

I agree except I don't think this outcome is at all what the Brethren desired when they began campaigning for Prop 8.

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree except I don't think this outcome is at all what the Brethren desired when they began campaigning for Prop 8.

I agree with you, but it might not have been the intentions of the Brethren in play there.  If they were inspired, it may have been the Lord pulling another fast one on us all.  He is very clever, and we simply do not know the end from the beginning.

 

Joseph and Brigham certainly did not expect early on that the Saints would eventually gather to the intermountain West, where they would solidly insert themselves and steadily grow in power and influence -- until their Church became a worldwide entity fully enmeshed in modern times.

[rockpond]

I agree with you, but it might not have been the intentions of the Brethren in play there.  If they were inspired, it may have been the Lord pulling another fast one on us all.  He is very clever, and we simply do not know the end from the beginning.

 

Joseph and Brigham certainly did not expect early on that the Saints would eventually gather to the intermountain West, where they would solidly insert themselves and steadily grow in power and influence -- until their Church became a worldwide entity fully enmeshed in modern times.

 

Well, I certainly like to believe that the Lord intended for the Church's activities to lead to full legalization of gay marriage but I am generally ridiculed for such a belief within the Mormon circles where I spend most of my time.

[california boy]

I am open to this idea if you have some sources for me to look at. It seems to fly in the face of the doctrine in Alma 34:34

"for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

 

 

Perhaps it is my own bias, but I've always interpreted the remarks to apply to the same process as all attractions (to people or things or behaviours) that impede progression and therefore they only disappear when the individual willing lays them aside.

If one has exercised control on such attractions in this life, then they may be blessed with their removal immediately but if not, if they have ignored (as in not nurtured them, but not cared enough to control them either) or nurtured them, it will take time to change the heart and mind.

 

 

I personally agree with both of you.  I do not believe for one minute that when I die, I will all the sudden magically no longer be attracted to men, and want to be with a woman.  As you pointed out, it goes completely against the scriptures and all logic and my very nature.  I have absolutely no desire to spend eternity married to a woman.  It becomes very difficult to work on a problem that you don't want the promised reward.  

 

I think the church leaders are trying to figure this one out themselves as was mentioned about a member of the first quorum of 70's earlier in this thread.  How could a gay member who had no desire to marry a woman his whole life on earth to the point that they were willing to be celibate and live a lone life with no companion all the sudden want to marry a woman when they die for ETERNITY?  Just because someone is willing to be celibate throughout their mortal life does not necessarily mean they want to be attracted to women in the next life.  Is there a magic change that takes place at death as Elder Oaks has indicated?  Or will same sex attraction continue after death?  If a person is able to overcome same sex attraction in the next life, why can't they work to overcome that attraction and be able to progress into a marriage with a woman in this life?  At one time the church thought that might be possible.  They no longer support that position.  

 

The problem is church leaders are trying to wedge in gay children of God into a Plan of Salvation designed for straight children of God.  Perhaps there is another understanding of the plan yet to be revealed.

[CV75]

Wha . . . ?  Not sure I follow you, CV.

Sorry. I was trying to show that I was equivocating as much as the Church does (which means not!)...

 

I think Church policy encourages people to make the difficult decision to abort based on sincere counsel and prayer. When this is done, their moral sense is enhanced. There may be those who for convenience might just focus on the letter of the policy, skip counsel and prayer, and call it good; I think they have missed an opportunity to gain some moral ground and may have lost some. By policy, the Church honors either decision as being between them and the Lord, reflecting the range of morality until it crosses into adding serious sin to personal sin.

 

In either case, I think the degree of moral sense already existing in these individuals drives whether they choose to involve counsel and prayer according to the policy. Once having had this opportunity to set their course, their moral sense would likely continue in the same general direction until a new opportunity arises to advance it.

[thesometimesaint]

Nonsense.  All will be immortal and nearly all will go to heaven (except those few destined for Perdition), courtesy of the Atonement.  The ranking comes in when it is determined which glory one will inherit: Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial (and which rank in the Celestial).  We cannot pay for our own sins.  Jesus took care of that, and it is by His grace that we are saved, even though it is and must be reflected in our works.

 

Repent means to turn towards God. Dear Lord please forgive me of all my sins except this one.

What is the difference between someone who sins and repents and the person whom sin and doesn't repent?

We do get rewarded for our actions and the desires of our hearts. Be they good or bad.

Actually we do pay for all our own unrepented of sins to the uttermost Farthing.

[thesometimesaint]

Hello Sometimessaint. If you wouldn't mind expanding on this particular sslope fallacy as it applies to the abortion issue, i would be most appreciative...in all sincerity. When i argue a point, i like to dot my i's and cross my t's.

Is the argument for this particular issue that it is one of unwaranted fear mongering? With great respect i would take issue with that. it appears personhood has increasingly been expanded to wider and wider circles of humanity. The expansion seems to follow the line of economic devt (i.e. More affluent societies can afford to be more generous in extending personhood rights to previously excluded categories of human beings)

It stands to readon that, given a regression in living standards we might revert to the more exclucivist models...it is common in hard times for infanticide to go up. Would You be of the opinion that this is not a reasonable concern?

OTOH, My feeling is that personhood extension is itself fallacious. We cant agree. Therefore, a right to life has to be contingent on something besides personhood... Otherwise there's lots of precedent to start excluding people from that right. The only objective secular criterion i can think of would be humanity itself coupled with the capacity to develope further.....no matter what, the zygote is a complete human entity generally capable of devt. i would argue That's enough to warrant special consideration and protection

Am i naif enough to think that such a guarantee will change a great deal in good times or in bad? It probably wouldnt reduce the practice as much as one would like...although we pass laws to set minimal standards of behaviour all the time knowing we will break them.

The real cure is in eliminating the reasons why people engage in the practice. Once those reasons are gone, what reason would one have to terminate a pregnancy (certain situations in extremis being accounted for). I would argue we all need to step up to the plate so that no one thinks abortion is a necessary solution. Of course, that is not a popular solution and so here we are...

Humans are simply too good at finding really good reasons for practices we have the means to eliminate...its also clear that given provocation, means and license, we'll push each other over that slope awfully fast. :-)

Thank You.

 

Hi there Hellel2.

 

I think you're jumping from A to Z without the intervening letters, at least in the modern State/Country.

 

Yes over time the definition of person-hood has expanded. Thank goodness. However jumping from a fertilized egg to fully living breathing person-hood is a jump I'm not willing to make. I further think the Church has made a reasonable accommodation when it comes to abortion among its members. We don't encourage it, but it is permissible under certain rare instances.

 

Sure economics play a role. Historically speaking that role largely disappears once the very basic human needs are met. Then once we meet those we get into the area of profound birth defects, and finally in sex selection. IE; Girls are a drain on family resources in less developed countries. But there are natural limits to that as with no girls that population will self exterminate given enough time.

 

At what point does that fertilized eggs' rights negate the rights of the mother? The best legal and religious minds have pondered that question for a long time now. I'm not qualified in either area to make that decision for you.

 

Sure we pass laws all the time. I'm not too sure how in a pluralistic society such as ours we could just go to our local church, mosque, synagogue, temple, kingdom hall, shrine, what have you, for the rules that apply equally to all. If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Sorry. I was trying to show that I was equivocating as much as the Church does (which means not!)...

 

I think Church policy encourages people to make the difficult decision to abort based on sincere counsel and prayer. When this is done, their moral sense is enhanced. There may be those who for convenience might just focus on the letter of the policy, skip counsel and prayer, and call it good; I think they have missed an opportunity to gain some moral ground and may have lost some. By policy, the Church honors either decision as being between them and the Lord, reflecting the range of morality until it crosses into adding serious sin to personal sin.

 

In either case, I think the degree of moral sense already existing in these individuals drives whether they choose to involve counsel and prayer according to the policy. Once having had this opportunity to set their course, their moral sense would likely continue in the same general direction until a new opportunity arises to advance it.

Excellent suggestions, CV -- and deserving of a rep point.

[Bee Sweet]

God values agency. A person has been given the choice of living His commandments, or not. Everyone has their own particular vice. Some people have problems with theft, honesty, fidelity, etc. If I said, its just the way I am, I can't change, I can't help myself, is that just a cop out or is it truth? Regardless of my propensity for sin, it is still sin, and it is still a choice.

[saemo]

Probably because they have different theological norms.  Roman Catholic doctrine holds that a human life begins at conception.  That is why they are opposed to all abortions of any kind, and consider it murder.  On the other hand, Roman Catholicism also opposes any sort of intervention to prevent fertilization of an ovum (except abstention or the rhythm method), thus encouraging unwanted pregnancies, which in turn increase the number of abortions.

As someone who was once pro choice, and now Catholic. One of the arguments that swayed me was, that a baby resulting from sexual relations is not an indicator of something gone wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Ectopic pregnancies

SEE http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy

[williamsmith]

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 

 

 

Back when society and the courts were trying to legalize Abortion, the Church most definately "spoke up".

Thus your premise is false.

 

BTW, more Black babies are aborted in New York today than are born.

Edited October 11, 2015 by williamsmith

[Rivers]

Hello! buy valtrex with no prescription , purchase levitra online no prescription , buy generic cialis , ambien online pharmacy great web site.

STOP!!!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

Back when society and the courts were trying to legalize Abortion, the Church most definately "spoke up".

Thus your premise is false.

 

 

CFR

[Five Solas]

Back when society and the courts were trying to legalize Abortion, the Church most definately "spoke up".

Thus your premise is false.

...

What thesometimesaint wrote in the post above.  Please!

:0)

 

--Erik

Edited October 11, 2015 by Five Solas