halconero Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) Elder Kearon was in Calgary last year. He said that the brethern wanted politically engaged members at all levels in government, in all mainstream parties, to be the voice of moderation and charity. Unless that's changed, I'm assuming that's still the case. These threads are stupid. I typed out a long response detailing the policies of the Republican Party I consider to have crossed the line into unconscionable evil, and I'm largely a conservative. But I didn't. Why? Because these threads are stupid and useless. They're baiting, extremely judgmental, and it's not your call as to the personal worthiness, motivations, or good conscience of members in the Democratic Party. Having been extremely involved in the political party scene before, people join because they believe in the cause. Some join for power. Some join because they feel they can be a moderating influence (and they are, more often than people think). Of these motivations, the last one least of should sufficient grounds to establish the worthiness and good conscience of the member. Stop it, Rivers. Edited January 31, 2019 by halconero 3
Rivers Posted January 31, 2019 Author Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) Ok. There are bad things done on all sides of the political spectrum. I’ll admit that. The subject of the relationship between political affiliation and religious views in one’s personal life has become of interest to me lately. I just wanted to hear some thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the responses. Edited January 31, 2019 by Rivers
mrmarklin Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Gray said: The Democratic Party has never embraced infanticide. True. The Governor of Virginia apparently has, however.
halconero Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 Asking how members reconcile their political affiliations when party policy may contradict Church teachings is probably a better line of discussion if you’re just trying to get people’s thoughts on the topic in general. Less inflamatory, and more fruitful. If you want to give examples, give contrasting examples across party lines. 2
rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yet they pick a lying serial adulterer and fornicator drenched in the stench of Babylon with all its fraud and who pays people to cover up his sins and who thinks nothing of God and has never repented as their presidential candidate. Hmmmmmm........you just a one issue voter? Were you talking about Bill Clinton? 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 31, 2019 Posted January 31, 2019 The Bible does not see abortion as murder. 2
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: The Bible does not see abortion as murder. You are getting way ahead of yourself, back up a little bit. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses the punishment if a man hits a pregnant woman. If she aborts due to be hit, there is punishment, but not death as required if the woman died. Of course, you have to overlook the fact that it is an unborn child that first announces the joy of Christ's birth when Mary meets Elizabeth. Also, you overlook the fact that Rebekah's twins, Esau and Jacob, struggled against one another in the womb. More importantly, we have prophets who have addressed the topic. There may be exceptions for an abortion, but they are few and far between.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted February 1, 2019 Popular Post Posted February 1, 2019 18 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Were you talking about Bill Clinton? I might as well have been. I remember as a teen how roundly the Republicans lambasted Clinton for his adultery and back then I thought they were sincere and actually morally indignant about these sins and I even agreed with them that they should remove him from office. I have learned since that those screaming for Bill Clinton's impeachment on the basis of one lie and one specific adulterous affair were not sincere by their deafening silence now. I was so much more naive back then. 5
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: This makes no sense at all under any circumstances. The only groups that have started this atrocity are Democrats in two states. Republicans, as a group, stand aghast at such actions. Calling black white does not make it white. Republicans grandstand a lot about abortion but even when they control the government they are more worried about tax cuts for the upper middle and upper classes then they are abortion. It makes for a fantastic drum beat to rile up the faithful but once elected they take little to no action. 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted February 1, 2019 Popular Post Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: You are getting way ahead of yourself, back up a little bit. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses the punishment if a man hits a pregnant woman. If she aborts due to be hit, there is punishment, but not death as required if the woman died. Of course, you have to overlook the fact that it is an unborn child that first announces the joy of Christ's birth when Mary meets Elizabeth. Also, you overlook the fact that Rebekah's twins, Esau and Jacob, struggled against one another in the womb. More importantly, we have prophets who have addressed the topic. There may be exceptions for an abortion, but they are few and far between. There are exceptions which implies that it is not equal in severity to infanticide and is not murder. I do not deny it is USUALLY a grave sin but it is not murder. The Church Handbook of Instructions does not treat it as murder, Exodus does not treat it as murder, and the requirements for baptism in missionary interviews treat murder and having or consenting to an abortion as sins very different in severity. People with abortion in their past have to interview a member of the Mission Presidency and can usually go ahead with the baptism. Those who have committed murder have to appeal to the First Presidency and it usually takes years to get permission to baptize them. 5
filovirus Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 I'm going out on a limb here: A democrat can actually support some republican views and not endorse all democratic views, and vice versa for a republican. 4
strappinglad Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: The Bible does not see abortion as murder. The Bible tells of the Lord killing a man who used a form of contraception. The Bible tells of the condemnation of people who sacrificed live infants to their red hot iron god. I'm going to need a CFR for your claim. Technically we don't see all abortion as murder either in some circumstances.
Bob Crockett Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, strappinglad said: The Bible tells of the Lord killing a man who used a form of contraception. The Bible tells of the condemnation of people who sacrificed live infants to their red hot iron god. I'm going to need a CFR for your claim. Technically we don't see all abortion as murder either in some circumstances. The Bible condemns accidental homicide as murder, subject to taking refuge in a city of refuge. The Bible awards damages to the husband of a woman who is the victim of accidental foeticide. I don't think Onan's story has anything to do with contraception. I don't think the sacrifice to Molech has anything to do with foeticide. 2
Bob Crockett Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: You are getting way ahead of yourself, back up a little bit. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses the punishment if a man hits a pregnant woman. If she aborts due to be hit, there is punishment, but not death as required if the woman died. Of course, you have to overlook the fact that it is an unborn child that first announces the joy of Christ's birth when Mary meets Elizabeth. Also, you overlook the fact that Rebekah's twins, Esau and Jacob, struggled against one another in the womb. More importantly, we have prophets who have addressed the topic. There may be exceptions for an abortion, but they are few and far between. The story of John the Baptist leaping in the womb has nothing to do with the penalty for abortion. No doubt, abortion is a heinous act and those that profit from it will find a sure place in hell, but the Bible doesn't condemn it and where it talks about foeticide, doesn't equate it with murder.
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, halconero said: Elder Kearon was in Calgary last year. He said that the brethern wanted politically engaged members at all levels in government, in all mainstream parties, to be the voice of moderation and charity. Unless that's changed, I'm assuming that's still the case. These threads are stupid. I typed out a long response detailing the policies of the Republican Party I consider to have crossed the line into unconscionable evil, and I'm largely a conservative. But I didn't. Why? Because these threads are stupid and useless. They're baiting, extremely judgmental, and it's not your call as to the personal worthiness, motivations, or good conscience of members in the Democratic Party. Having been extremely involved in the political party scene before, people join because they believe in the cause. Some join for power. Some join because they feel they can be a moderating influence (and they are, more often than people think). Of these motivations, the last one least of should sufficient grounds to establish the worthiness and good conscience of the member. Stop it, Rivers. Also yes, these threads are stupid. I suspect they are more about wallowing in imagined moral superiority for one's political choices and they rarely come from those involved in politics to make real moral change. Being correct politically (or politically correct) is a cheap virtue that requires little in the way of real faith or toil. It is why you can find people ranting about the evils of tax rates or the virtues of universal healthcare as if they were the center of the gospel but who are unwilling to act on a simple ministering assignment or to go out with the missionaries to do some real good. 3
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, filovirus said: I'm going out on a limb here: A democrat can actually support some republican views and not endorse all democratic views, and vice versa for a republican. 1
Gray Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: This makes no sense at all under any circumstances. The only groups that have started this atrocity are Democrats in two states. Republicans, as a group, stand aghast at such actions. Calling black white does not make it white. There are no states where any political party is calling for infanticide. The only pro-infanticide politician I know of is the president. 1
Gray Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, mrmarklin said: True. The Governor of Virginia apparently has, however. Nope, not him either. Not even a little.
Gray Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: You are getting way ahead of yourself, back up a little bit. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses the punishment if a man hits a pregnant woman. If she aborts due to be hit, there is punishment, but not death as required if the woman died. Of course, you have to overlook the fact that it is an unborn child that first announces the joy of Christ's birth when Mary meets Elizabeth. Also, you overlook the fact that Rebekah's twins, Esau and Jacob, struggled against one another in the womb. More importantly, we have prophets who have addressed the topic. There may be exceptions for an abortion, but they are few and far between. The only reference to involuntary abortion in scripture treats it as a property crime - the fetus being the woman's property. But that still has nothing to do with infanticide. 3
Glenn101 Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Remember folks, we gotta draw the line, and enshrine that line in law. So we'll know who to arrest, and who to protect as they make decisions about their body. Remember, there's no such thing as "Well, obviously it needs to be here", because no, it's not obvious to everybody. I've personally witnessed someone express the truthful opinion that the woman should be able to abort her baby within the first 90 days after birth. Happy guessing! Happy scripture-interpreting! Happy morals-based-on-your-worldviewing! If you think there's a difference between life and human life, please draw those lines as well. To answer the last question first, the scriptures seem to differentiate between life and human life in that humans are given leave to kill and eat animals and plants. As for the first part, I have been seriously conflicted on this matter. I feel life to be very sacred but do not know where to draw the line as to where life begins. And care must be taken in trying to make a judgment on the matter. If the law were to dictate that life begins at conception then a woman who becomes pregnant but does something careless that causes her to lose the child could be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, or the like. I do not wish to live in that world. I do believe that once a woman becomes pregnant through acts of her own volition, the abortion choices should be severely restricted. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does recognize that there are some instances where abortion can be performed without sin. I have detailed before an occasion where years ago my wife was faced with one such situation. It was not a fun situation. I am afraid that the increasing secularism in the United States is going to lead to more and more laws such as the one just passed in new York and an ever reducing value on human life. I could say a lot more, but I will leave it here. Glenn 1
Calm Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: Also yes, these threads are stupid. I suspect they are more about wallowing in imagined moral superiority for one's political choices Rivers is a good guy. I don't remember him raving about Republicans. I think this is just a highly emotional issue and many are frustrated by what they see as callousness and even evil. Some info pointed to by a friend: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/10/20/no-late-term-abortions-dont-rip-babies-out-of-wombs-but-they-are-needed/#652160045cf8 Quote Some individuals point to New Mexico as an example of a state with such lax restrictions on abortion that perhaps Trump’s scenario could play out there. In fact, however, New Mexico wouldn’t be the best poster child for the horror story Trump conjured up: just four New Mexico state residents had abortions at 28 weeks or later in 2014, and that dropped to two in 2015. And 28 weeks is still months away from a 38- to 40-week full-term pregnancy. New Mexico also follows a counter-intuitive national trend: states with the fewest restrictions on abortion have shown some of the biggest declines in the number of abortions. As the Albuquerque Journal reported earlier this year, abortions in the state have dropped by 24% since 2010. The NY law makes abortion a medical issue rather than a criminal one. I haven't looked at the other state mentioned. I don't see many doctors aborting in preference of delivery when possible and few women getting to a point where they can safely deliver a baby and choosing abortion. I would like to see stats if anyone is claiming this is a common choice among doctors and pregnant women. There is certainly a potential of misuse if one gets a doctor who assumes better to abort than deliver a viable fetus and put it up for adoption, but the NY law previous required a woman's life be in danger, which could have delayed treatment for cancer or risk paralysis, etc. Edited February 1, 2019 by Calm 2
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 34 minutes ago, Gray said: There are no states where any political party is calling for infanticide. The only pro-infanticide politician I know of is the president. Oh, I am sorry. I thought infanticide was the killing of an infant. I guess I was mistaken by Virginia delegate Kathy Tran who clearly stated that a child may be aborted while in labor up to the moment of delivery and choose to abort it. I know it is cute to play word games and if it helps you sleep at night, then please, sleep in as much peace as you can achieve. However, killing a child at the moment of birth is infanticide and murder of a child.
Calm Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Oh, I am sorry. I thought infanticide was the killing of an infant. I guess I was mistaken by Virginia delegate Kathy Tran who clearly stated that a child may be aborted while in labor up to the moment of delivery and choose to abort it. I know it is cute to play word games and if it helps you sleep at night, then please, sleep in as much peace as you can achieve. However, killing a child at the moment of birth is infanticide and murder of a child. I think the problem is writing a law that allows for the appropriate medical procedure of inducing labor or a cesarean of a baby who is incapable of surviving on its own (needs life support measures) when there is a risk to the mother to wait until nature kicks in as vs. allowing for random killing of viable babies prior to birth. It appears to me the NY and Virginia law include the doctor's involvement in the decision making to avoid the latter, whether they are successful will be seen. Anyone have stats showing late term abortions occurring for non medical reasons? Edited February 1, 2019 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) Quote Of the 699,202 abortions reported to the CDC in 2012, 0.17% were at or after 21 weeks and occurred in a state where it was possible to have a post viability abortion for any reason. We know from other data sets that many procedures at or after 21 weeks are for fetal anomalies (some say about 80%) and many of these are before 24 weeks. A review of data from one clinic that does abortions after 24 weeks in a state with no gestational age limit shows a median gestational age of 22 weeks. It is a likely a fair extrapolation that all clinics specializing in later term procedures have a similar medial gestational age. Using all the available data it would be fair to say that at least 50% of the 1,186 procedures are < 24 weeks, but that may be higher. The more advanced the procedure the more likely there is an anomaly. While most abortions at or after 24 weeks are for fetal anomalies there are definitely a few of these later procedures because of rape (especially among minors who may have been raped by a family member and are afraid to come forward or who were originally not believed), possible a few for mental health issues, and also because of delays in diagnosing pregnancy although these seem to be the exception. Whatever your views on choice support your side with accurate statistics. There are obviously very few late-term (post 24 week) pregnancy terminations in the United States. Most of the 1.3% of abortions at or after 21 weeks are for anomalies and the vast majority are before 24 weeks. There are approximately 600 abortions a year after 24 weeks and most are for fetal anomalies. https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-abortions-are-really-performed-in-the-united-states/ PS: I prefer the Church's approach to abortion, I would also hope anyone considering it would seek out medical and psychological counseling in order to be fully informed about impact. I also think those criticizing abortion should use accurate numbers and not purely emotional appeals. I think there is likely much greater issue with earlier abortions as the significant majority of late term appear to be for reasonable medical issues. And I think any abortion bill wanting to limit women's access should have corresponding funding of other forms of birth control or financial and emotional support resources for pregnant women who would have otherwise turned to abortion to solve their concerns, for example hefty maternity leaves so women aren't penalized in their careers for carrying a child to term. And covering medical costs for caring of babies with significant fetal, life threatening anomalies if abortion or allowing the baby once delivered to die a nature death (as was how the Virginia gov described what he understood the bill to refer to) is removed as an option. Edited February 1, 2019 by Calm 1
Rivers Posted February 1, 2019 Author Posted February 1, 2019 4 hours ago, halconero said: Asking how members reconcile their political affiliations when party policy may contradict Church teachings is probably a better line of discussion if you’re just trying to get people’s thoughts on the topic in general. Less inflamatory, and more fruitful. If you want to give examples, give contrasting examples across party lines. Yeah. True. But the abortion question is what got me thinking about it.
Recommended Posts