Scriptures Re: Abortion

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This hyperbolic explanation completely disregards the life of the child.  9 months of pregnancy is not slavery.  While those 9 months would certainly be difficult, very difficult, I do not see how they justify the death of a child.

Yes, I agree, and I believe that this is not just a "higher" moral position, but is "the" moral position.

I seriously find it odd to have to defend pro-life positions to Mormons.  Do you really believe that saving the life of an innocent child by requiring a mother to be pregnant for 9 months and then giving the baby up for adoption is equivalent to raping her?

if any Catholic woman wants to die from complications of pregnancy. Whom am I to object?

It is when the Catholic church tries to make laws that force my non Catholic women family and friends to die from complications of pregnancy that I have a problem.

Edited May 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

The issue is compulsion and personal integrity and freedom of choice of women. She is innocent of the child's death if her unborn child is the product of her rape. If, on the other hand, her conception is the product of her willing act, she chooses to conceive and therefore oughtn't to be permitted to take the child's life. She is a murderer if she does.

That isn't what the Church says.

Edited May 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the official position of the LDS church?  This is a very pro-choice position, that the circumstances of the mother justify the death of the child.

I know that this is a more nuanced situation, yet the Catholic Church has held that intentionally killing a child is wrong in any situation.  There are interesting arguments about "self-defense" though I think they ultimately fall flat because the child is not attacking the mother, so the mother doesn't need to "defend" herself.  But let's focus on the rape/incest exception, because I think it is less nuanced.

I don't think I can even imagine how difficult it would be for a rape victim to carry the child and all I can really say is that the grace of God would be needed in abundance.

Yet I still can't get past the fact that we're talking about the ending the life of a child.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that intentionally killing a child is not wrong in any situation.  While everyone shares that belief, what they don't share is when does a fetus become a child.  The Catholic church and others believe it happens at time of conception.  But that is just a belief that not everyone shares.  That is the issue. Can you prove that a fertilized egg is actually a child?  Of course not.  You can only prove that it has the potential to being a child, something that most people would also agree with.  

You don't KNOW for a fact when the spirit enters the body.  You only have a sincerely held BELIEF.  Since it is just a belief, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. I too am against abortion.  But I don't believe that I have a right to impose my belief on others.  Nor do I believe I can speak for God on this issue.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

 

 

21 hours ago, USU78 said:

Simple: when the joy of conception is compelled, it is slavery, and the slave may lawfully break her chains. The higher moral position, however, is to endure the chains for the innocent's sake. Moreover, one may not compel the innocent in chains to endure those chains, lest one be as guilty as the rapist.

The simpler answer is that while abortion is a serious matter and should never be taken lightly, the church does not view it as murder. 

Elder Nelson has stated:

Quote

So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Mormon_position_on_abortion%3F

[SeekingUnderstanding]

double post

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know of anyone who thinks that intentionally killing a child is not wrong in any situation.  While everyone shares that belief, what they don't share is when does a fetus become a child.  The Catholic church and others believe it happens at time of conception.  But that is just a belief that not everyone shares.  That is the issue. Can you prove that a fertilized egg is actually a child?  Of course not.  You can only prove that it has the potential to being a child, something that most people would also agree with.  

You don't KNOW for a fact when the spirit enters the body.  You only have a sincerely held BELIEF.  Since it is just a belief, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. I too am against abortion.  But I don't believe that I have a right to impose my belief on others.  Nor do I believe I can speak for God on this issue.

I don't know anyone who really puts embryos on the same level as infants. Consider a nurse in a burning fertility clinic. There is an infant child left by the small refrigerator containing over one hundred fertilized eggs (and conviently a hand truck to move it). You can only save one - the baby or the embryos. Which would you choose? If the embryos have the same rights and are the same as the baby wouldn't you be morally obligated to save them?

Edited May 14, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the official position of the LDS church?  This is a very pro-choice position, that the circumstances of the mother justify the death of the child.

Hi again MiserereNobis. I just want to be really clear about what I meant. I said:  "I presume they prayed about the issue. I have been basically pro-life since my days at Jesuit HS. However, when it comes to balancing life for life I have come to believe a mother can prayerfully consider abortion. Perhaps circumstances make her a single parent with other dependent children."

I am not saying a single mother should consider abortion just because she has dependent children. I was bringing that up as a factor for a pregnant mother with a difficult pregnancy. So I am not promoting "a very pro-choice position," because that is somewhat uncommon. However, my step-mother lost her first child in a pregnancy in which she had toxemia. Although she desperately wanted the child, her pregnancy was killing her. Now multiply that with perhaps several dependent children. Is it right for her to sacrifice herself to have this child and leave children parentless? Will God intervene to help her in her pregnancy? etc. These are all questions for her to consider in such a situation. In this type of situation I again don't feel terminating a pregnancy rises to the level of a murder. Not every death we cause is murder. We are entitled to defend our families against aggression even to the point of death - that is not murder. I believe a mother also has a right to consider her own life in the balance, and whether she should sacrifice it for an unborn child which may not even live. As others have pointed out on this thread, God apparently didn't treat feticide (perpetrator liable for monetary damages) the same as killing a child or adult who had survived the birth process(murder punishable by death). 

 I now have no distress over wondering whether the unbaptized child is headed for hell due to original sin. Nor do I concern myself as to whether the unborn is being treated fairly by God, since I no longer believe this is the only world that child can come to. That unborn child will have infinite possibilities to go to a world and prove himself/herself, and will be resurrected with us, and because he/she did not have an opportunity in this world, will be entitled to go to the celestial kingdom as an innocent being through the grace of Christ, until the next opportunity arises... However, I caution that this paragraph is not all LDS doctrine yet. It will be one day. Right now the Church recognizes that innocent children who die before the age of their accountability can go to the celestial kingdom, and then the situation becomes much more speculative.

Quote

I know that this is a more nuanced situation, yet the Catholic Church has held that intentionally killing a child is wrong in any situation.  There are interesting arguments about "self-defense" though I think they ultimately fall flat because the child is not attacking the mother, so the mother doesn't need to "defend" herself.  But let's focus on the rape/incest exception, because I think it is less nuanced.

I don't think I can even imagine how difficult it would be for a rape victim to carry the child and all I can really say is that the grace of God would be needed in abundance.

Yet I still can't get past the fact that we're talking about the ending the life of a child.

 

How about ending the life of a mother with other children dependent upon her? Is that right or just? Again, not all killing is murder. In fact the Lord commanded Israel to kill criminals. I believe God gives me the right to defend my family to the death of those seeking or endangering their lives, and I will do so if my family wishes, and I will feel free of guilt of the death of any person who tries to rape my wife or harm my family. I would probably first try to avoid killing such a person, but my point is that is not murder. That is not what the law forbids. Again with the case of an innocent unborn child, I believe the mother is under every obligation to try to preserve the child's life outside of sacrificing herself, including her mental health. As I believe USU pointed out if a mother was not faithful, under the Torah, God could cause her to miscarry(for the faithful husband - not unlike a case of rape). So there are situations in which the involuntary nature of the situation can be a factor, and the LDS Church recognizes this.

Edited May 14, 2017 by RevTestament

[SamIam]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the official position of the LDS church?  This is a very pro-choice position, that the circumstances of the mother justify the death of the child.

This is from the Church handbook of instructions:

17.3.1

Abortion The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when: 1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. 2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. 3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer. Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline. As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.   This is also found in the handbook of instructions relative to disciplinary actions: Abortion Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances of members who have been involved in abortions. Formal discipline may be necessary for members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, or encourage abortions. However, Church discipline should not be considered for members who were involved in an abortion before they were baptized or because (1) the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest, (2) the life or health of the mother was in serious jeopardy, or (3) the fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to survive beyond birth (see 17.3.1). Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Edited May 14, 2017 by SamIam

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, SamIam said:

This is from the Church handbook of instructions:

 

I think nobody here disputes that.  The Church's position on abortion is fairly (not completely) clear.   For instance, unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS Church does not counsel its members to fight for the repeal of right-to-abortion laws, although in the past before Roe v. Wade it mobilized members to fight against pro-abortion state legislation.  In the Catholic Church, the Vatican has threatened Catholic legislators with excommunication; the LDS Church has never take such a stand.  The Catholics do not admit any exceptions; the LDS Church's position has exceptions.  And, bishops and stake presidents have to deal with abortion with confessing members.  It is isn't treated as murder nor as child abuse.

The question is whether and to what extent the scriptures themselves deal with abortion.  They do not except in the case of negligent foeticide, where the penalty is money damages.  

Why are the scriptures silent, one must wonder?  After all, the early Christian writings in the first few centuries deal with it and denounce it as a grievous sin.  Jewish commentators on the Torah, although denouncing abortion, say that the absence of mention in the Hebrew Bible suggests that because the fetus is attached to the woman, the decision is hers to make no matter how wrong.  And it is wrong, they say.  Once the fetus is detached and viable, commentators suggest, the child has an independent existence and subject to God's laws about murder. 

The political or spiritual question as to whether abortion should or should not be legal is not the question the opening post poses.  But, as a political matter, I find it rather fascinating that the Republican party has spent millions upon millions to pass a flag-burning amendment to the constitution and almost nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade with an amendment.  One must wonder why that is the case.    And then there is the practical question of whether abortion should be made illegal, thus forcing mostly poor misguided women into the alley once again.  I don't have an answer.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Surely you are not suggesting that because more than one person shares an opinion, then that gives something credibility to being the truth.  If that were true, then Zeus surely is a god that should be worshiped.

Nope, that is not what I am saying.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The real question is, why do these people feel the need to twist and extrapolate a torchered interpretation of scripture to believe abortion is wrong.  

I don't think that's the "real question."  I think that is begging the question ("a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true").

I am not wedded to the exegesis for which I provided several links.  My point, as I said later, is that such exegesis seems somewhat plausible.  

You are rejecting it out-of-hand, for reasons you have not provided.  I am leaving myself open to the possibility that this exegesis has some validity.  That's all.

As  Latter-day Saint, I don't have to hang my hat on biblical pronouncements.  Sola scriptura, as applied to The Bible, is not our thing.  Never has been.  Never will be.  The LDS extended and open canon speaks to the issue of abortion (D&C 59:6), and I am glad of that.  We also have plenty of statements from past and present prophets and apostles on this topic, and I am glad of that, too.  And the Church encourages us each to seek revelation for ourselves on topics like this.  I am glad of this also.  The moral clarity available to the Latter-day Saints is a wonderful thing.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The answer is, of course, they want their opinion to be the opinion of God.  

Again with the cynicism.  I am more inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt, namely, that they have sought to understand "the opinion of God" and have conformed theirs to it (rather than, as you seem to suggest, vice versa).

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If they can claim that their opinion is the same as God's then anyone who has a different opinion is going against God.  

I'm not sure we can chalk this topic down to a difference of opinion.  There is a Latin maxim which I have long found to be valuable when considering topics such as this: "De gustibus non disputandum est," meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes."

If we were discussing whether Andy Warhol was a great artist, that would be a discussion about opinions.  There is no right or wrong answer.  It's all a matter of taste.  Personal preferences.  IOW, "de gustibus non disputandem est."

My son recently told me that he thinks jarlsberg cheese is superior to smoked gouda (he is becoming something of a cheese connoisseur).  Again, no right or wrong answer here.  And certainly no need to privilege his "opinion" over, say, his sister's (who prefers smoked gouda).  It just doesn't matter.  Neither opinion needs to trump the other.

But abortion is a qualitatively different topic, isn't it?  Our society presently privileges one position (abortion should be legal in most circumstances) over the other (abortion should be illegal in most circumstances).  When the topic at hand is literally a matter of life and death, then the discussion should probably involve more than merely opinions.  We need to discern facts.  

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't say biblical allusions to abortion was out of bounds.   Everyone can have any opinion they want on abortion or any other dogma.  Just claiming that their opinion is the same as Gods is out of bounds, especially when it takes blaming translators, changing definitions, pulling unrelated scripture together etc in order to fabricate some edict from God.  

I don't see how that is "out of bounds."  If I say "As a Christian, I believe theft is immoral and violates the will of God," is that "out of bounds?"  The Bible plainly condemns theft.  

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I agree with you.  I pretty much stated that when I said that a person should rely on the Spirit rather than some pronouncement of fallible men to decide what is truth.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  We pretty much all of us rely, to significant extent, on "pronouncement{s} of fallible men" in addition to "the Spirit."  I don't think it's an either/or situation.

Ironically, a person who claims to "rely on the Spirit" becomes one of those "fallible men" you say should not be relied upon "to decide what is truth."  

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I am open to the possibility that people who oppose elective abortion are acting with a sincere conviction that abortion is morally abhorrent.  As I stated in this very post you are quoting, I believe elective abortion is morally abhorrent.  But what I am not claiming is that everyone else should have the same opinion as me because I speak for God as the people in the op you posted are claiming.

Um, what?  Where did I say "everyone else should have the same opinion as me?"  Chapter and verse, please.  I don't think I said that, or anything like it.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

William Wilberforce was standing up and taking action for what he believed in.  

As are people who oppose abortion.  What is the difference between them and Wilberforce?

Wilberforce was a profoundly Christian man.  He described slavery as "wickedness."  He also said this about his faith:

Quote

Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?

And this (same link):

Quote

Read the Bible, read the Bible! Let no religious book take its place. Through all my perplexities and distresses, I seldom read any other book, and I as rarely felt the want of any other.

And this (same link):

Quote

May God enable me to have a single eye and a simple heart, desiring to please God, to do good to my fellow creatures, and testify my gratitude to my adorable Redeemer.

And this:

Quote

Let him then, who would be indeed a Christian, watch over his ways and over his heart with unceasing circumspection. Let him endeavour to learn, both from men and books, particularly from the lives of eminent Christians, what methods have been actually found most effectual for the conquest of every particular vice, and for improvement in every branch of holiness. Thus studying his own character, and observing the most secret workings of his own mind, and of our common nature; the knowledge which he will acquire of the human heart in general, and especially of his own, will be of the highest utility, in enabling him to avoid or to guard against the occasions of evil: and it will also tend, above all things, to the growth of humility, and to the maintenance of that sobriety of spirit and tenderness of conscience, which are eminently characteristic of the true Christian.

And this (same link):

Quote

Let true Christians then, with becoming earnestness, strive in all things to recommend their profession, and to put to silence the vain scoffs of ignorant objectors. Let them boldly assert the cause of Christ in an age when so many, who bear the name of Christians, are ashamed of Him: and let them consider as devolved on Them the important duty of suspending for a while the fall of their country, and, perhaps, of performing a still more extensive service to society at large; not by busy interference in politics, in which it cannot but be confessed there is much uncertainty; but rather by that sure and radical benefit of restoring the influence of Religion, and of raising the standard of morality.

And, perhaps most famously, this (same link):

Quote

God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects: the supression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.

Wilberforce credited his faith - in fact "God Almighty" Himself - with his (Wilberforce's) tireless efforts to end the slave traid.

Wilberforce found slavery to be incompatible with Christianity.

Wilberforce felt that what he "was standing up and taking action for" was congruent with God's will.

So I'm not sure I understand the difference between what he did and what today's abortion opponents are doing.  

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You don't need to twist and contort scripture to do that.  It is pretty clear that he found slavery to be morally abhorrent.  

And people who oppose abortion likewise feel that institution "to be morally abhorrent."  No need to "twist and contort scripture" to do that, either.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

But when a person states that their morals are the morals of God and twist scripture as a need to prove those convictions are God's morals then yes, they are doing it to shame others for not having the same morals as God.  

Do you likewise accuse Wilberforce of having done this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

" everyone else should have the same opinion as me because I speak for God as the people in the op you posted are claiming."

[3DOP]

On 5/12/2017 at 6:35 PM, smac97 said:

I came across an interesting article today which discusses biblical passages that may refer to scriptural exhortations against abortion: No, New York Times, Christianity's Opposition to Abortion Is Anything But New

Some excerpts:

In D&C 59:6, we are commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I have always understood the "like unto it" to be a rather unequivocal (though not necessarily exclusive) reference to abortion.  There is also rather clear guidance from prophets and apostles.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven't read the whole thread, but I would point to Jesus in the womb of Mary as bringing some light upon the subject. She is already the "mother of my Lord" when she visits her cousin Elizabeth immediately after the Annunciation. It would seem that even before "the quickening", there is already an identifiable person, or perhaps we could use the word, soul, in her virgin womb.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

" Thou shalt not kill ( murder ) " . Is abortion murder? There is an argument that the fetus is just a part of the woman and removing it is about the same as removing an appendix. Others say that the fetus is a complete and separate individual and that given time would emerge and continue that individual existence. Killing that individual at 4 months gestation is no different that doing so after 4 months of life outside the womb. Society today seems almost to accept the line between abortion and murder to be a matter of seconds before and after live birth. We are revolted by anyone who would kill a new born and yet societies in the distant past thought nothing of sacrificing babies to their god ( Baal ? or whomever ) Armies during all of history have been really good at eliminating the young of the enemy. It used to be done with the sword, now it comes from the sky . The Catholic Church has been really firm about abortion. Has it been as firm as , say, the Quakers when it comes to other death dealing? Apparently not from what I have read. Nuanced Death... quite the philosophical conundrum .

The problem with the "life begins at conception" argument is that almost no one treats this as if it were so. Women regularly 'naturally' abort embryos. If those all represent the equivalent of living beings then where is the outcry for medical advances to prevent this atrocity that is worse then genocide? We do not know the exact numbers because most women do not realize they are pregnant when they miscarry very early but it is possible the number is as high as 50% of embryos and definitely is at least in the high teens. Where is the demand for medical research to combat this whole-scale slaughter. This is worse then the Black Death which killed a third of Europe but no one cares to do much of anything about it.

Edited May 15, 2017 by The Nehor

[cinepro]

The LDS Doctrine of pre-mortal life and the Plan of Salvation introduces some interesting wrinkles into the conversation that are often overlooked.

For example, there is the important question of at what point the fetus or embryo becomes a "person"?  LDS would have to admit that this would be no later than the point that the spirit enters the fetus. 

So there are two considerations to that. 

First, we have the scripture in the Book of Mormon where Jesus talks to Nephi (the son of Nephi) the night before he (Jesus) is born on the other side of the planet:

Quote

12 And it came to pass that [Nephi] cried mightily unto the Lord all that day; and behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying:

13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/1?lang=eng

I think it was Bruce McConkie who theorized that this could have been an angel pretending to be Jesus, but in this case "theorized" means "made up."  Without any contrary evidence, the scripture says what it says.

So we have pretty strong evidence that the spirit doesn't enter the body until late in the pregnancy.  There are obviously other scriptural stories that indicate the spirit being there sooner, so we can only say we just don't know.

And second, what if the spirit is in the body during pregnancy and abortion is an actual "murder"? 

According to D&C 137, children who die before the age of accountability are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  So the millions of children who have been aborted are drastically increasing the number of people who are "saved" (far, far more than have ever joined the Church and done it the hard way.)

But if the aborted fetuses aren't "children" and they don't have their spirits yet, then those spirits would be re-assigned to different bodies.  And since LDS don't get abortions, this only increases the likelihood of a baby that would have potentially been born to a non-LDS family to be born to an LDS family instead.

And since children typically join the religion of their parents, this only increases the likelihood of them accepting the gospel and being saved.

So either way, abortions are increasing the odds of souls being saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  For that reason, we should be skeptical of anyone who claims Satan is pro-choice.  If anything, Satan would understand this and want as many children born to non-LDS families as possible and hope that they live to the age of 8.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope, that is not what I am saying.

Good.   We agree on that.

Quote

I don't think that's the "real question."  I think that is begging the question ("a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true").

I am not wedded to the exegesis for which I provided several links.  My point, as I said later, is that such exegesis seems somewhat plausible.  

You are rejecting it out-of-hand, for reasons you have not provided.  I am leaving myself open to the possibility that this exegesis has some validity.  That's all.

Just because someone has an opinion on what they think a scripture may mean does not mean that they are right.  I haven't rejected it out-of-hand.  I have only stated that in my opinion they are trying to make scripture fit their opinion on abortion.  This is one of those "hobby commandments" where because God has not made something clear, they take it upon themselves to make the will of God clear.  Perhaps it is for them.  But it certainly is NOT the only interpretation of those scriptures.  Others have different opinions and different interpretations .  

Quote

As  Latter-day Saint, I don't have to hang my hat on biblical pronouncements.  Sola scriptura, as applied to The Bible, is not our thing.  Never has been.  Never will be.  The LDS extended and open canon speaks to the issue of abortion (D&C 59:6), and I am glad of that.  We also have plenty of statements from past and present prophets and apostles on this topic, and I am glad of that, too.  And the Church encourages us each to seek revelation for ourselves on topics like this.  I am glad of this also.  The moral clarity available to the Latter-day Saints is a wonderful thing.

I am very happy Mormon theology works for you and you believe church leaders speak for God.  I once thought the same thing when church leaders promised me that they were speaking for God.  As it turns out, they do not. 

Quote

Again with the cynicism.  I am more inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt, namely, that they have sought to understand "the opinion of God" and have conformed theirs to it (rather than, as you seem to suggest, vice versa).

I'm not sure we can chalk this topic down to a difference of opinion.  There is a Latin maxim which I have long found to be valuable when considering topics such as this: "De gustibus non disputandum est," meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes."

If we were discussing whether Andy Warhol was a great artist, that would be a discussion about opinions.  There is no right or wrong answer.  It's all a matter of taste.  Personal preferences.  IOW, "de gustibus non disputandem est."

My son recently told me that he thinks jarlsberg cheese is superior to smoked gouda (he is becoming something of a cheese connoisseur).  Again, no right or wrong answer here.  And certainly no need to privilege his "opinion" over, say, his sister's (who prefers smoked gouda).  It just doesn't matter.  Neither opinion needs to trump the other.

But abortion is a qualitatively different topic, isn't it?  Our society presently privileges one position (abortion should be legal in most circumstances) over the other (abortion should be illegal in most circumstances).  When the topic at hand is literally a matter of life and death, then the discussion should probably involve more than merely opinions.  We need to discern facts.  

I don't see how that is "out of bounds."  If I say "As a Christian, I believe theft is immoral and violates the will of God," is that "out of bounds?"  The Bible plainly condemns theft.  

Once again, you make my point.  Yes the Bible PLAINLY condemns theft.  It does not plainly condemn abortion.  Those that want to condemn abortion by using the scriptures to do so have to strain meanings of words and verses that can be interrupted in numerous ways.  It is their opinion on how those verses could be interrupted. That is not the case with theft.  The Bible is perfectly clear.

 

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean here.  We pretty much all of us rely, to significant extent, on "pronouncement{s} of fallible men" in addition to "the Spirit."  I don't think it's an either/or situation.

Ironically, a person who claims to "rely on the Spirit" becomes one of those "fallible men" you say should not be relied upon "to decide what is truth."  

Ah no, not everyone relies significantly on "pronouncements of fallible men".  I learned that lesson quite clearly. I have reached my opinion on the evils of abortion through the Spirit with no need to convince others of my belief.  I make no claims to be infallible.  Nor do I feel the need to impose my beliefs on others.  Each person should rely on God to guide them on this and all other issues when it come to the claims of religion.  

This is what I actually said.

Quote

 

Of course I am open to the possibility that people who oppose elective abortion are acting with a sincere conviction that abortion is morally abhorrent.  As I stated in this very post you are quoting, I believe elective abortion is morally abhorrent.  But what I am not claiming is that everyone else should have the same opinion as me because I speak for God as the people in the op you posted are claiming.

 

 

Quote

Um, what?  Where did I say "everyone else should have the same opinion as me?"  Chapter and verse, please.  I don't think I said that, or anything like it.

Do you see anywhere in that quote where I stated you said anything?  I wasn't quoting you when I wrote  "everyone else should have the same opinion as me?" was I.

 

Quote

As are people who oppose abortion.  What is the difference between them and Wilberforce?

Wilberforce was a profoundly Christian man.  He described slavery as "wickedness."  He also said this about his faith:

And this (same link):

And this (same link):

And this:

And this (same link):

And, perhaps most famously, this (same link):

Wilberforce credited his faith - in fact "God Almighty" Himself - with his (Wilberforce's) tireless efforts to end the slave traid.

Wilberforce found slavery to be incompatible with Christianity.

Wilberforce felt that what he "was standing up and taking action for" was congruent with God's will.

So I'm not sure I understand the difference between what he did and what today's abortion opponents are doing.  

And people who oppose abortion likewise feel that institution "to be morally abhorrent."  No need to "twist and contort scripture" to do that, either.

Do you likewise accuse Wilberforce of having done this?

Thanks,

-Smac

I never said Wilberforce wasn't Christian. This is what I wrote.  

Quote

William Wilberforce was standing up and taking action for what he believed in.  You don't need to twist and contort scripture to do that.  It is pretty clear that he found slavery to be morally abhorrent.  I think most people in todays world would agree.  But when a person states that their morals are the morals of God and twist scripture as a need to prove those convictions are God's morals then yes, they are doing it to shame others for not having the same morals as God.  As you know, it is much easier to show that slavery is ok with God according to both the Old and New Testament than it is to show that God is against slavery.  That still doesn't not make slavery morally correct.  

Most of what you wrote I agree with because I completely believe that following the Spirit in discerning truth is the plan of God.  Your slavery example shows that even the scriptures may state morals that are not always correct.  All men are fallible, even those that lived 4000 years ago.  Trust God.  Put your faith in Him.  Seek His guidance.  I learned long ago to not trust someone just because they claim to speak for God.

Now do you see anywhere that I stated William Wilberforce was not a Christian or didn't believe in the Bible? Yet you give 6 references stating his belief in Christianity and the Bible.  Why?  And no I did not accuse Wilberforce of trying to force scripture to fit his beliefs.  The reference was to the OP.  

Why did you not include the rest of my post.  I think it addressed many of the things you seem to be having problems with in my response.  Here it is for you to ponder again.  

Quote

 

Most of what you wrote I agree with because I completely believe that following the Spirit in discerning truth is the plan of God.  Your slavery example shows that even the scriptures may state morals that are not always correct.  All men are fallible, even those that lived 4000 years ago.  Trust God.  Put your faith in Him.  Seek His guidance.  I learned long ago to not trust someone just because they claim to speak for God.  

 

What I find most odd about your posts is that you are trying to pick apart what I have stated when I actually hold the same view on abortion as you and the church does.  You read into what I have actually stated and then demand an explanation for something I never said.  What are you trying to do here?  If I am stating something you disagree with then fine.  I would love to hear your opinion.  But there is no need to try and make up things that are not in what I wrote. 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by california boy

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The problem with the "life begins at conception" argument is that almost no one treats this as if it were so. Women regularly 'naturally' abort embryos. If those all represent the equivalent of living beings then where is the outcry for medical advances to prevent this atrocity that is worse then genocide? We do not know the exact numbers because most women do not realize they are pregnant when they miscarry very early but it is possible the number is as high as 50% of embryos and definitely in the high teens. Where is the demand for medical research to combat this whole-scale slaughter. This is worse then the Black Death which killed a third of Europe but no one cares to do much of anything about it.

I have to admit I was shocked when I first learned about how often conceived eggs fail to implant or otherwise survive the first few weeks. 

[3DOP]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem with the "life begins at conception" argument is that almost no one treats this as if it were so. Women regularly 'naturally' abort embryos. If those all represent the equivalent of living beings then where is the outcry for medical advances to prevent this atrocity that is worse then genocide? We do not know the exact numbers because most women do not realize they are pregnant when they miscarry very early but it is possible the number is as high as 50% of embryos and definitely is at least in the high teens. Where is the demand for medical research to combat this whole-scale slaughter. This is worse then the Black Death which killed a third of Europe but no one cares to do much of anything about it.

To die of natural causes is slaughter?

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

To die of natural causes is slaughter?

 

I have heard cancer and AIDs statistics called a slaughter. Why are we not racing for the cure to save these embryos?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/13/2017 at 7:57 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

Since the LDS Church has no doctrine that human life begins at conception, the innocence of life issue is not as black & white.  Moreover, Genesis 2:7 suggests that human life begins when the first breath is taken -- an event depicted in LDS temple rites.  In any case, the LDS Church seems to hold that abortion is acceptable, not only in cases of rape and incest, but also in the event of danger to the life of the mother.  The LDS Church also does not condemn those family planning techniques which are opposed by Roman Catholicism.  Consequently, there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, and thus fewer abortions.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

...................................................................  

The political or spiritual question as to whether abortion should or should not be legal is not the question the opening post poses.  But, as a political matter, I find it rather fascinating that the Republican party has spent millions upon millions to pass a flag-burning amendment to the constitution and almost nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade with an amendment.  One must wonder why that is the case.    And then there is the practical question of whether abortion should be made illegal, thus forcing mostly poor misguided women into the alley once again.  I don't have an answer.

Another question we might want to consider is why the Republican Party is so opposed to spending public monies on prenatal medical care, or on neonatal and well-baby care -- so as to get the baby through the most dangerous early period.  It is no accident that the USA has an infant mortality rate (5.82 per 1,000 live births) higher than most civilized countries -- such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, Israel, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  What happens to so-called "pro-life" people when the rubber meets the road?

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 5/13/2017 at 11:35 AM, smac97 said:

Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

The best fix for new evils has always been living prophets.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/13/2017 at 7:57 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

 

The Church does not say its ok to have an abortion in these instances.  It just will not impose any church discipline on these instance.  I suppose it does not want to add more trauma to the pregnant woman with the idea that she is being forced to have the kid.  It does however say that the woman should pray about it first and get an answer from God first before proceeding.  Which is good counsel.  If God is ok with it then we should be ok with it also.  If the woman gets an answer not to abort, that perhaps would make the whole process of giving birth much easier.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I would point to Jesus in the womb of Mary as bringing some light upon the subject. She is already the "mother of my Lord" when she visits her cousin Elizabeth immediately after the Annunciation. It would seem that even before "the quickening", there is already an identifiable person, or perhaps we could use the word, soul, in her virgin womb.

 

Hey 3DOP, I have a question about Catholic theology.  If Jesus was in the womb of Mary for 9 month, who governed heaven during that time period?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

To die of natural causes is slaughter?

Just another Catholic theology question.  What happens to the souls of all those aborted fetuses?  Since they weren't baptized, what is their fate?

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The best fix for new evils has always been living prophets.

There's a dead prophet who had some wise words about calling good things "evil", at least.

Quote

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!