I find myself in disagreement with the Church’s position, what is to be done.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Salt Lake wasn't really Mexico's at that point in time.  The Mexican-American war was almost ready to end.  California and New Mexico had already fallen to the Americans by the beginning of 1847.  The second largest city in Mexico fell to the US by May 1, 1847.  Mexico City was going to fall in September 1847.  By the time the Saints left Far West, Salt Lake was de facto property of the US.

Yes, but we were talking legalities and while it was pretty obvious it would come to the United States the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was not signed until February of 1848 so by legal standards the immigration was unethical and in violation of law. If you want to invoke the right of the conqueror you can but that leads down a rabbit hole. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I do not understand your reply to Misererenobis' statement. This is what he said;

He said: "The baby has done nothing wrong..."

your reply: "It might in some cases..."

In your reply, you listed some situations, but I fail to see how any of those situations that you listed give fault to the baby. Please do not take this wrong, I am not being critical, I just can't see how those situations make the baby responsible. I can see fault to a returning rapist or to the father, or even to the mom for her emotional instability due to her unwanted pregnancy. However, none of these are the babies blame.

I clarified, not the baby itself, but its existence.  The baby is not responsible for its existence, the rapist is.  But the baby has to bear the consequences of the rapist's choice just as the mother does.

[CV75]

I believe mortal life begins once we know about and do something in anticipation about it while in the pre-mortal existence. It may be in a rudimentary and preparatory sense, but as long as the war in heaven continues here, we can also look back and see that "here" was spiritually /eternally created before physically / mortally. For this reason, the Church's position on abortion doesn't seem to be based on when life begins, but on decisions that can be moral under one set or circumstances and immoral under another. Hence the guidance to seek the benefits of priesthood keys and personal revelation.

Edited June 5, 2019 by CV75

[snowflake]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It would be interesting if abortion was outlawed even in cases of rape and incest. Then the LDS church's policy would say that it is ethically ok if the woman and God decide together to have the abortion in that case, but the legal system says it isn't allowed.

I understand the idea behind the rape and incest exception, but does seem logically inconsistent. The baby has done nothing wrong and is not threatening the life of the mother. Why kill it when the mother can give it up for adoption? Of course it would be emotionally difficult for the mother to carry the baby to term -- but there are also other situations where carrying a baby to term can be incredibly difficult, but those aren't allowed and are condemned.

As a pro-life Catholic, I've not understood the LDS exception here. How is killing an innocent baby ok just because of the situation of its conception?

Alabama's new anti-abortion law was specifically worded and designed to challenge the "personhood" of the baby, which is why rape and incest is not allowed in their new law. In many states if a pregnant woman is murdered it is considered a double murder (mom and baby)....other states the Mom can just decide she doesn't want the baby and abort it...perfectly legal but not very consistent logically. Is the baby a person or not? Only if the Mother wants it to be.  Thank God for the brave legislature in Alabama and for the female Govenor Kay Ivey who signed the law....hopefully as designed this law will go all the way to the Supremes and challenge Roe v. Wade. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Alabama's new anti-abortion law was specifically worded and designed to challenge the "personhood" of the baby, which is why rape and incest is not allowed in their new law. In many states if a pregnant woman is murdered it is considered a double murder (mom and baby)....other states the Mom can just decide she doesn't want the baby and abort it...perfectly legal but not very consistent logically. Is the baby a person or not? Only if the Mother wants it to be.  Thank God for the brave legislature in Alabama and for the female Govenor Kay Ivey who signed the law....hopefully as designed this law will go all the way to the Supremes and challenge Roe v. Wade. 

Under the Mosaic law if someone injured the baby in the mother, it became a case of remuneration rather than death for murder... So God didn't seem to consider an infant fully a person. We don't really know when the spirit enters a baby. Perhaps if the body of first or second trimester fetus is killed, God sends the spirit to a different body... we don't really know. Therefore, it behooves us to respect life as much as conditions allow. I am not a woman, but if I got pregnant through involuntary conditions, I would probably give the baby up for adoption - especially, if I were a teen. There are so many now that want babies, and can't have them. I once was essentially fully pro-life, but time has allowed me to see the wisdom in our church's position. I do not believe it is necessary for a mother to give up her own life for that of an unborn baby even though many are willing. That can become a hardship for other children. However, the practice of using abortion as simply birth control as a matter of convenience is very sad, and speaks ill of our society...

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

....hopefully as designed this law will go all the way to the Supremes and challenge Roe v. Wade. 

They have already made their opinion clear.

https://youtu.be/9_y6nFjoVp4

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Under the Mosaic law if someone injured the baby in the mother, it became a case of remuneration rather than death for murder... So God didn't seem to consider an infant fully a person. We don't really know when the spirit enters a baby. Perhaps if the body of first or second trimester fetus is killed, God sends the spirit to a different body... we don't really know. Therefore, it behooves us to respect life as much as conditions allow. I am not a woman, but if I got pregnant through involuntary conditions, I would probably give the baby up for adoption - especially, if I were a teen. There are so many now that want babies, and can't have them. I once was essentially fully pro-life, but time has allowed me to see the wisdom in our church's position. I do not believe it is necessary for a mother to give up her own life for that of an unborn baby even though many are willing. That can become a hardship for other children. However, the practice of using abortion as simply birth control as a matter of convenience is very sad, and speaks ill of our society...

The Church's position on abortion doesn't seem to be based on when life in mortality begins (life is sacred no matter the sphere, requiring an eternal perspective) but on decisions that can be moral under one set or circumstances and immoral under another (requiring an eternal wisdom). Hence the Handbook guidance to seek the benefits of priesthood keys and personal revelation.

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They have already made their opinion clear.

https://youtu.be/9_y6nFjoVp4

I miss those 3' high wigs.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Church's position on abortion doesn't seem to be based on when life in mortality begins (life is sacred no matter the sphere, requiring an eternal perspective) but on decisions that can be moral under one set or circumstances and immoral under another (requiring an eternal wisdom). Hence the Handbook guidance to seek the benefits of priesthood keys and personal revelation.

That is an interesting take on it. Yes, I think it could be immoral to force a woman to have her baby if it is going to kill her or have severe mental implications such as in cases of rape or incest. It could be akin to holding a gun to her head in such circumstances. Again, I see wisdom in the Church's position. Just in case - I was not inferring that the Church's position does not respect life - it just recognizes that we should not ignore the life of the mother in living God's will.

[Anijen]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I clarified, not the baby itself, but its existence.  The baby is not responsible for its existence, the rapist is.  But the baby has to bear the consequences of the rapist's choice just as the mother does.

I still don't understand. So, the mere existence makes the baby to blame? Why complicate matters? Put the blame squarely on rapist, father, and emotional state of the mother. The baby or his existence has zero culpability.

It still does not square with your answer

He said: "The baby has done nothing wrong..."

your reply: "It [baby] might in some cases..."

How does it, the baby might?  Saying, it might by its existence is still saying the baby might have done something wrong. The baby has not. You have transferred the the subject [the baby] to a state of living (existence) and gave it objective reality and then put possible blame on it. I am scratching my head here.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Anijen

[tkv]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering our colonization of Salt Lake without Mexico’s permission the church as a whole has committed “thieves’ violations of these moral and ethical strictures”. Not only that but we also sent troops to support a nation invading our host nation. We were worse migrants then the MS13 gang so many whine about.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Salt Lake wasn't really Mexico's at that point in time.  The Mexican-American war was almost ready to end.  California and New Mexico had already fallen to the Americans by the beginning of 1847.  The second largest city in Mexico fell to the US by May 1, 1847.  Mexico City was going to fall in September 1847.  By the time the Saints left Far West, Salt Lake was de facto property of the US.

Yes, comparing 1847 migrants to MS-13 migrants, how stupid is that. Even comparing a typical 2010s migrant to an 1847 migrant is silly.

Even Nehor doesn't want massive illegal immigration to adversely affect own way of life, own well-being — just another fraud.

[HappyJackWagon]

The abortion question is such a hard one because legitimate moral arguments exist on both sides.

Still, I'm left to think about the questions to which I have no answers...

- When does life begin and when does the spirit enter the body? Does it matter?

- If it's simply an argument about killing an innocent life, why would there be any exceptions, whether for rape, incest, well-being of mother? Why not let nature take it's course?

- Why should a woman be condemned to hardship because she was raped, or was victim of incest, or her life is in danger?

- Who am I to decide for another person?

 

IMO- I have no business imposing my morality on others. I may not like someone else's decision but that doesn't give me the right to enforce my decision on them. The truth is we don't know any definitive answers to most of these hard questions and the answers only exist in personal morality and ethics. It seems rather prideful of me to suppose my morals and ethics are better than any other person's. IMO the church's position is just right. I prefer that abortion not be treated cavalierly, yet also recognize that individuals need to have freedom to decide for themselves based on the circumstances.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

That is an interesting take on it. Yes, I think it could be immoral to force a woman to have her baby if it is going to kill her or have severe mental implications such as in cases of rape or incest. It could be akin to holding a gun to her head in such circumstances. Again, I see wisdom in the Church's position. Just in case - I was not inferring that the Church's position does not respect life - it just recognizes that we should not ignore the life of the mother in living God's will.

Yes, i understand.

It seem that policy-wise, "when life begins" is not taken as a medical/health/temporal question, but a moral/philosophical/eternal one, and so the Handbook leaves the timing out. similarly, see the wording in Handbook 2, 21:3.8, which is about extending mortal life, a kind of "other side of the coin" to aborting it: " When severe illness strikes, members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer." In 21.3.3, euthanasia violates God's commandments.

As a side note, 21:3.8 (prolonging life) is in the "Medical and Health Policy" section where consultation with the bishop is not mentioned. But in the "Policies on Moral issues" section, members are strongly encouraged to consult with their bishops about abortion.

[Calm]

 

Quote

That can become a hardship for other children.

This should be a very high consideration imo.  For many women, pregnancy can have life altering implications.  It is not just affecting 9 months, but the rest of her life.  For me, each pregnancy moved my disorder significantly ahead.  The second pregnancy moved it to moderate, but by the time my daughter was 8, it was severe.  If I had gotten pregnant again, chances are I would not have been able to care for my children with just the help of my husband.  In anticipation of problems, we tried to make sure that wasn't going to happen and were successful, but it is possible that even conscientious women can get accidentally pregnant.

My mother was unable in many ways to provide full care to my younger siblings due to health issues after the last birth.  Even older kids were impacted as I consider a number of my family's significant physical and emotional health issues to be a result of my mom's limitations and us children having to assume adult responsibilities too early without enough active supervision.  Among other things I learned how to be very competent, aware of others' needs, and responsible so it wasn't horrendous (except for the months we lived with one grandma who wasn't as competent as she appeared), but I lost the ability to feel competent or to be able to enjoy much of life due to a perpetual fear of what will happen next and not being up to handling it.  Not life shattering, but makes it harder to get out of bed and maintain a healthy lifestyle.  30 years as an adult has provided a superficial covering of realism, but the underlying panic is pretty always there...and that has significant physical health issues as it places me in fight or flight/stress mode much of the time.  One of my younger siblings has had a much, much worse time.

Having that experience made me very aware of the impact of parents' choices on children which is why though I was heartbroken by it, I only allowed myself to have two children once I saw what pregnancy did to me.  I figured I was going to traumatized my kids enough by just being human.  I wasn't going to essentially abandon them as well.  I was planning on adopting, but health ended up worse than anticipated.

I do not consider abortion to be a moral form of optional birth control though****, it should only be used as such after every other effort for control has failed or in cases where the need could not have been anticipated (rape and incest).  I have known women who found out that birth control pills or other perfectly used prevention methods do not work for them, at which point abortion is the only alternative option to pregnancy, so I don't consider it automatically immoral in such cases where pregnancy would drastically affect long term health.

****In many cases, the immorality of choosing abortion as primary birth control is on the society or government, not individuals having to make that choice (think China's one child policy as an example or Russia's shortage of the pill or other contraceptives in the past, source Russian friends).

Edited June 5, 2019 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Brigham Young once made the comment that the spirit enter when the mother feels independent life (if I remember the quote correctly. Not exactly useful at all in a medical or legal context.

I think that Joseph F Smith, and Bruce R McConkie did as well. Of course a great deal of the things, Elder Bruce R McConkie wrote, came from questions already answered by both President F Smith, and Joseph Felding Smith. We are told in scripture that, “Children are the heritage of the Lord”, and we as people and members of the Church get to, “pro-create”, and partake in that “God like” ability and have true ”Joy”. This is one of the two primary purposes for which God sent, or gave, His Son the world, the other being “Eternal Life”. These goals for which we were created. In the news, just days ago, I read about a woman who used (her) “choice”, to deny chemotherapy in order to protect her twins, to bring them to full term. Despite her Doctor’s grim predictions, she had two healthy babies, and both Mother and Daughters (I think daughters) are healthy and doing very well. Having children helps us achieve a true immortality, the promise that something of us will survive, with future generations until the coming of Jesus Christ, and beyond. Sadly, despite using her choice, caused so many who call themselves, “pro-choice”, unloaded both barrels on her, pardon the pun”, calling her “selfish”, and “harming the cause”. They feared that her doing so, as setting back the clock, for women’s rights to abortion, even partial birth abortion, which allows women in some states to abort children, even while in labor. 

As to the the issue of immortality, most seek and hope for it. My many goals I list below...

1. Through the Atonement of our Lord Jesus, including Eternal Life. 

2. Through my living the commandments by obeying the commandments, while understanding that only by Grace, that makes it possible.

3. Through my children, and my grandchildren, and all generations that follow.

4. Through my writings, my poetry, no matter how woeful it may be. I pray those shared and published that it might be so.

5. Through the kindness given to me, and that which I did to others. 

One poster in this thread, stated that a woman having an abortion, only concerns the wife and husband, or Mother and Father. That would be true in a perfect world. But, a woman, nor even a teenager who is pregnant, does not have to tell, Husband, Father, nor even a Parent. Current U.S, law requires no one to know. A teacher can’t give a minor an aspirin without their parent’s permission, but a doctor can perform an abortion without consent of anyone. No matter the age, in most States, despite age, abortion on demand for all is allowed. More than on Doctor in the U.S., have been convicted for lying to both girls and women, for lying and telling women their babies were somehow deformed. One such Doctor, is in prison for killing babies born alive, who survived attempted abortions. Early on, I spoke of my own granddaughter, and how doctors warned she most likely would be born abnormal. However, she is living proof of such errors, not only healthy, but top of her class, musician, and a source of great joy of her parents, her grandparents, and her extended family. She is only ten, and we eagerly await all the talents and joys yet to come. I have a close friend, one of my best, at 9, he lost his older daughter to a genetic condition, now his youngest is going to die from the same disorder. Thankfully due to advances in medal science, his youngest is still with us at 17, but is condition is getting worse. I once asked, if you knew beforehand, would you do it again. His reply was simple, “what is the alternative, never knowing them, never loving them, never knowing that joy, because they never lived”? But, her has three healthy happy Children, and soon his first grandchild. 

Anyway, just musing. My wife and I lost our first, it was awful, never knowing what she or he may have been. As I said before, our youngest came later in our marriage, and doctors warned of the danger, friends warned, even some family. But abortion was never an option for us. Our youngest granddaughter is from that decision, and we could not imagine our lives without it. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, tkv said:

Considering our colonization of Salt Lake without Mexico’s permission the church as a whole has committed “thieves’ violations of these moral and ethical strictures”. Not only that but we also sent troops to support a nation invading our host nation. We were worse migrants then the MS13 gang so many whine about.

Yes, comparing 1847 migrants to MS-13 migrants, how stupid is that. Even comparing a typical 2010s migrant to an 1847 migrant is silly.

Even Nehor doesn't want massive illegal immigration to adversely affect own way of life, own well-being — just another fraud.

The argument has been made that the pioneers were settlers, not migrants.  There were very few settlements of any kind, American, Mexican, or Amerind, in the Great Basin in 1847 or even within the contours of the later State of Deseret.  The pioneers came with the intent to settle, farm, and raise the next generation.  Just what is the MS-13 puke's intention?

In any case, all of Mexico, including what was later ceded to the US in 1848, was under the occupation jurisdiction of the US Army.   I've never seen anybody from the DOD ever lodge any complaint that the Mormon settlers were unwelcome in the very sparsely settled Great Basin in 1847 or at any later time.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

I miss those 3' high wigs.

But Rococo always yields to Neo Classic  scientism and hedonism, and here we are.

I am hoping for Impressionism to return, so what we see is light and not what people THINK is real. No coincidence that Romanticism came next...

Big wheel keep on turnin'... 

It'll happen 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I think that Joseph F Smith, and Bruce R McConkie did as well. Of course a great deal of the things, Elder Bruce R McConkie wrote, came from questions already answered by both President F Smith, and Joseph Felding Smith. We are told in scripture that, “Children are the heritage of the Lord”, and we as people and members of the Church get to, “pro-create”, and partake in that “God like” ability and have true ”Joy”. This is one of the two primary purposes for which God sent, or gave, His Son the world, the other being “Eternal Life”. These goals for which we were created. In the news, just days ago, I read about a woman who used (her) “choice”, to deny chemotherapy in order to protect her twins, to bring them to full term. Despite her Doctor’s grim predictions, she had two healthy babies, and both Mother and Daughters (I think daughters) are healthy and doing very well. Having children helps us achieve a true immortality, the promise that something of us will survive, with future generations until the coming of Jesus Christ, and beyond. Sadly, despite using her choice, caused so many who call themselves, “pro-choice”, unloaded both barrels on her, pardon the pun”, calling her “selfish”, and “harming the cause”. They feared that her doing so, as setting back the clock, for women’s rights to abortion, even partial birth abortion, which allows women in some states to abort children, even while in labor. 

As to the the issue of immortality, most seek and hope for it. My many goals I list below...

1. Through the Atonement of our Lord Jesus, including Eternal Life. 

2. Through my living the commandments by obeying the commandments, while understanding that only by Grace, that makes it possible.

3. Through my children, and my grandchildren, and all generations that follow.

4. Through my writings, my poetry, no matter how woeful it may be. I pray those shared and published that it might be so.

5. Through the kindness given to me, and that which I did to others. 

One poster in this thread, stated that a woman having an abortion, only concerns the wife and husband, or Mother and Father. That would be true in a perfect world. But, a woman, nor even a teenager who is pregnant, does not have to tell, Husband, Father, nor even a Parent. Current U.S, law requires no one to know. A teacher can’t give a minor an aspirin without their parent’s permission, but a doctor can perform an abortion without consent of anyone. No matter the age, in most States, despite age, abortion on demand for all is allowed. More than on Doctor in the U.S., have been convicted for lying to both girls and women, for lying and telling women their babies were somehow deformed. One such Doctor, is in prison for killing babies born alive, who survived attempted abortions. Early on, I spoke of my own granddaughter, and how doctors warned she most likely would be born abnormal. However, she is living proof of such errors, not only healthy, but top of her class, musician, and a source of great joy of her parents, her grandparents, and her extended family. She is only ten, and we eagerly await all the talents and joys yet to come. I have a close friend, one of my best, at 9, he lost his older daughter to a genetic condition, now his youngest is going to die from the same disorder. Thankfully due to advances in medal science, his youngest is still with us at 17, but is condition is getting worse. I once asked, if you knew beforehand, would you do it again. His reply was simple, “what is the alternative, never knowing them, never loving them, never knowing that joy, because they never lived”? But, her has three healthy happy Children, and soon his first grandchild. 

Anyway, just musing. My wife and I lost our first, it was awful, never knowing what she or he may have been. As I said before, our youngest came later in our marriage, and doctors warned of the danger, friends warned, even some family. But abortion was never an option for us. Our youngest granddaughter is from that decision, and we could not imagine our lives without it. 

I agree with you in general. If you want to know how bad doctors can be you can look back at the involuntary sterilization and the fake treatment for syphilis experiments. Some of the blackest marks in American history. While there are exceptions (I.e. lunatics) most people don’t like abortion. It is traumatic for the mother in almost all cases. When pro choice supporters say they want it rare most of them sincerely mean it.

In regards to age of consent I sympathize but I also know why those laws exist. Not everyone has loving parents. I volunteer with abused and neglected teens and children. Having to consult with parents over a pregnancy can in some cases put a teen in grave danger in an abusive environment. These are cases I would also look much less harshly at abortion. A young girl with a normalized view of abusive relationships is pregnant with parents that would beat her is she revealed it. If the child is born there is little to no grandparent support to help the teen raise it and what there is is abusive. The girl is in no position to navigate the long road to adoption and the parents can curtail it and make it next to impossible. I am still not sure what the best method is but I lean towards the law as is. Good parents generally have kids that will come to them in trouble and I lean towards protecting the ones who have no advocate.

As to a mother risking her life to bring a child to term I am glad I will never face that trial and do not know how I would react if my wife were in that position. I like to think I would pray and get divine counsel on what to do and follow it but I am not sure.

As to doctors lying.....well, we have medical boards for a reason and hopefully they can be booted out of practice. That is a problem in many areas and not just abortion. I remember as a child my mother took me to a pediatrician and the guy lied endlessly. I only see in hindsight how stupid he also was. Thankfully my mother never took any of us to that quack again.

Just my two dollars. I would say two cents but I am adjusting for inflation since that saying started.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, tkv said:

Considering our colonization of Salt Lake without Mexico’s permission the church as a whole has committed “thieves’ violations of these moral and ethical strictures”. Not only that but we also sent troops to support a nation invading our host nation. We were worse migrants then the MS13 gang so many whine about.

Yes, comparing 1847 migrants to MS-13 migrants, how stupid is that. Even comparing a typical 2010s migrant to an 1847 migrant is silly.

Even Nehor doesn't want massive illegal immigration to adversely affect own way of life, own well-being — just another fraud.

Oh, sorry. When I read this I vomited in my mouth a little and had to swallow it rather let it go all over my shoes. Start from the beginning and first, read a history book rather than propaganda. Please, do NOT go to your university history book from Harvard, Stanford, and the like. That is not actual history, but rather a regurgitation of a specific social view. Read a real historian that reports on what actually happened. Cheers, 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

However, she is living proof of such errors, not only healthy,

What percentage of such predictions are wrong though?

How many women hoped the doctor was wrong and made their decision on that encouraged by friends and family and then when it turned out doctors were right, were left on their own to care for their special needs child?  And one parent taking off leaving the burden fully on the other is not unusual from what I have seen.

We need to be careful not to give false hope to parents that are then unprepared for caring for their child.  I am not suggesting abortion is the solution, I think better and cheap services to support families with special needs kids are much, much more needed

Edited June 6, 2019 by Calm

[rpn]

Posts here have misinterpreted the Church position.    The policy doesn't "allow" abortions, or support abortion, or agree with abortion even in the extreme circumstances.   It merely declines to take disciplinary action against a person in specific circumstances.   That is fundamentally different, and well supported by tradition and doctrine.   Absent revelation from God,  that apparently no set of Church leaders has received, about when live begins, and/or about whether a mother must give birth even when the infant is not expected to live, or the mother is expected to die,  replacing church leaders views of what clearly doctrinally is between the member and God, for the member's decision, is just not consistent with agency.    It is not our leaders job to decide what is a personal decision.   It IS absolutely the obligation of members to determine their path, and be sure it is consistent with His will.  

I find it entertaining (or maybe hypocritical) that it is the party that deplores overburdening government who urges government to control this decision.   And I hope that if I were ever in that position, I would have the courage and faith and mental health to be able to carry the child to term.   But I do not want my government deciding things we don't know scientifically or doctrinally.   I think Roe v. Wade balances that well (and I think the science will come that viability is earlier than 20 weeks (currently the earliest surviving micropremie is 21 weeks plus 5 days, if I remember correctly), but no where near 8 weeks --- viability requires a lot more than a heartbeat).

Edited June 6, 2019 by rpn

[nuclearfuels]

On 6/4/2019 at 2:50 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

For years, I have supported the Church’s position on abortion. It used to only condone abortions for victims of “incest and rape”, as both can case Mother’s to continue to endure the despicable crimes perpetrated upon them. It also allowed the same, if the “life of the mother was in danger”. But even then it recommended that prayer and fasting should help inform such decisions, or so I was told. 

I understand that now it even includes the same for those whose children may be deformed, or have other serious medical issues. My oldest daughter had doctors encouraging tests for her due to age, to see if the baby had health issues. At first my daughter said no, she told the doctors that it did not matter, as she would not have an abortion. With even more pressure, she finally agreed, and the doctors found something wrong, but were not sure what. By doing so, she had months of worry, unsure if it might by “Downs Syndrome”. But, when she was born, it was not “Downs Syndromes”, but a rare cancer that my daughter had when she was young. A year later, my granddaughter Remy, had surgery to remove the melanoma, which is so rare for a newborn, they scarily have numers on other children. Today Remy is ten, top of her class, and cancer free. My daughter turns 45 on Saturday, and had two children after Remy. She had friends who tried to talk her into an abortion, but the doctors were wrong with their grim predictions. What if others have doctors trying to diagnose problems are wrong, and they are, and many of our dear sisters use this Church policy to end pregnancies of babies who will be just fine? What separates us now from many views held by pro-abortion (choice) groups, or every pro-abortion group. I have four very healthy children, one born when my wife was older, who had some friends, family and even doctors warning her against having my youngest. What is to be done, and are we moving toward a pro-choice (which is different for the doctrine of “free agency”. “Free Agency”, is about our choice that affects only our lives from a doctrinal standpoint, not the lives of the innocent. How will others use the position as a Church now, or have I been misinformed of current Church policy concerning this issue?    

I am not sure concerning the policy on a thread like this, I did not see anything that did not permit such a topic. If I am in error, please mods let me know, and I will delete. This is a big issue here in State of Georgia, as we have the new, “heartbeat law”, and most of Hollywood threatening to stop making my vies here as a result. Even though Georgia has become “little Hollywood”, and make a lot of movies here, it is a multi-billion dollar industry here, including almost all, “Marvel Movies”, and hundreds more. 

So, thoughts? 

Isaiah 3:12 - As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee (politicians) cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

I doubt the Church is moving toward a pro-choice, pro-murder-the-innocent stance. You may have been misinformed about the current position.

Let Hollywood take it's murderous filth and blood money elsewhere. GA will continue growing, especially greater Atlanta. 

[nuclearfuels]

12 hours ago, rpn said:

Posts here have misinterpreted the Church position.    The policy doesn't "allow" abortions, or support abortion, or agree with abortion even in the extreme circumstances.   It merely declines to take disciplinary action against a person in specific circumstances.   That is fundamentally different, and well supported by tradition and doctrine.   Absent revelation from God,  that apparently no set of Church leaders has received, about when live begins, and/or about whether a mother must give birth even when the infant is not expected to live, or the mother is expected to die,  replacing church leaders views of what clearly doctrinally is between the member and God, for the member's decision, is just not consistent with agency.    It is not our leaders job to decide what is a personal decision.   It IS absolutely the obligation of members to determine their path, and be sure it is consistent with His will.  

I find it entertaining (or maybe hypocritical) that it is the party that deplores overburdening government who urges government to control this decision.   And I hope that if I were ever in that position, I would have the courage and faith and mental health to be able to carry the child to term.   But I do not want my government deciding things we don't know scientifically or doctrinally.   I think Roe v. Wade balances that well (and I think the science will come that viability is earlier than 20 weeks, but no where near 8 weeks).

I don't see it as "urging govt control of this decision."  It's more like  - hey, should we authorize the gov't to take money we earned, by force, via taxes, (taxes or prison is the choice) and use some of those taxes to fund murdering babies.  Seems like an odd move - say for example a person of any faith/religion objected to killing babies - the choice is currently: pay taxes or goto jail; those taxes will go where the guiltless Congress decides. Don't like it? Run for office.

And from that, you find the opposing party to be controlling. 

 

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, tkv said:

Yes, comparing 1847 migrants to MS-13 migrants, how stupid is that. Even comparing a typical 2010s migrant to an 1847 migrant is silly.

Even Nehor doesn't want massive illegal immigration to adversely affect own way of life, own well-being — just another fraud.

Interesting post. I especially like how the premises and the conclusion bear no relation to each other.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

 It's more like  - hey, should we authorize the gov't to take money we earned, by force, via taxes, (taxes or prison is the choice) and use some of those taxes to fund murdering babies. 

There already is a law prohibiting the federal government for paying for abortions (the Hyde Amendment from 30 or so years ago).   And I absolutely agree with that (though I'm not sure we could hire enough auditors to 100% assure that, and I would support government payment in cases of rape, incest, and life/mental health of the mother (the latter should include when the baby cannot live after birth --- don't recall if those exceptions are ).