Calm Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, SteveO said: course, you also think the opinions and values of women only matter when they align with your own. Sunstoned, imo, is not like that. His posts on the message board are generally respectful of others. It is best not to try and mindread others. Edited January 26, 2020 by Calm 2
SteveO Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Sunstoned, imo, is not like that. His posts on the message board are generally respectful of others. It is best not to try and mindread others. Alright, fine. Sunstoned, what do you think about women whose values and views align with church leadership regarding their lives and bodies? Edited January 26, 2020 by SteveO
RevTestament Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 12:19 PM, MiserereNobis said: Is Mike Lee and the LDS church going to take the next logical step and push for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest? The life created from rape or incest is still a life and has done nothing wrong to deserve to be aborted. If people are going to protest and argue that an unborn fetus is a life (pro-life rallies!) then they need to extend that to all unborn fetuses. I find the LDS position here illogical. If the response is that carrying the child of a rapist would cause great trauma to a woman than we are admitting that the woman's emotion/psychological health is of greater importance than that of the life of a child. This is conceding a pro-choice premise but only changing where the line is drawn. If, in the case of incest, the argument is given that the child has a greater chance of deformity, then we would have to allow abortion in the cases of down syndrome and the like. Why does the LDS church hold the position that aborting children is ok in these instances? I know you have received some responses, but I want to chip in as well lest the reader misunderstand. The Church does not believe it is "OK" in these instances. It is a grave matter, but unlike what sunstoned said, the Church does not feel it is left up to the male leaders of the Church to make this decision. Because in these particular instances the life and health of the woman in involved, through no fault of her own, the Church believes it is a matter between her and the Lord - in other words the Church does not give the "OK" to have an abortion. The Church believes the woman is entitled to personal revelation from the Lord in these instances for several reasons. 1. Murder is a grave offense. Killing is only allowed in self-defense or for other necessary reasons such as the mother's own health - whether physical or mental. Some women just should not go through pregnancy because it is medically known to be what is considered an unacceptably high risk. 2. The Church is in no position to judge a woman's mental health or abilities to go through a full pregnancy and birth. It would be presumptuous to presume a raped woman will be OK. However, this is not beyond the Lord. 3. I don't know that this is really a factor, but the Mosaic law did not consider harming/killing an unborn baby to be an offense worth the death penalty - in other words the Mosaic law did not consider it murder, even if it was a punishable offense when done by a third party. In short abortion is really not something the Church has said is OK in certain circumstances. It is something that the Church defers to the Lord as to whether it is OK in these circumstances given the facts of each case. 1
RevTestament Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/25/2020 at 1:49 AM, sunstoned said: God's definitions in the D&C have been changed before. There is residence. The WoW "not by way of commandment" was totally reversed by Heber Grant. That is not the way I really look at it. I believe the word of wisdom is just that. However, the Presidency holds the keys to the temple, and can add what requirements they deem necessary. If they wish to make the word of wisdom a requirement for temple attendance, that is their authority to do so, even if it is not a requirement for saints who do not wish to attend the temple, and do work there.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) On 1/24/2020 at 12:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said: 2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs the question First definition: “1: to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place” Language changes and evolves. Do try to keep up with your grammar nazi-ing... Edited January 26, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 17 minutes ago, SteveO said: Alright, fine. Sunstoned, what do you think about women whose values and views align with church leadership regarding their lives and bodies? I’m pretty sure Sunstoned is okay with those women choosing not to arbort their babies. It is the “pro-choice” movement after all not the “pro-abortion” movement.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 12:44 PM, smac97 said: I understand your concern. It's quite justified. I also see the Church's position on nuance. I'm conflicted about it, TBH. There is only one logical conclusion regarding the church’s position on abortion. That is killing a fetus is in a different category of wrong than murder or killing in general. We don’t murder an innocent because I was wronged. We don’t murder an innocent because there is a chance it’s death could save my life. Therefore the church doesn’t view abortion as murder. Fetus life is less than baby/toddler/child/adult life.
Meadowchik Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 1 hour ago, SteveO said: Alright, fine. Sunstoned, what do you think about women whose values and views align with church leadership regarding their lives and bodies? I'm not Sunstoned, but I did wrestle with the topic for many years as a believing LDS woman because I believed it is important. I initially found ways to agree with the official church position: opposing abortion except possibly in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Yet there were also other gospel values I believed in: loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourning, and believing others can have access to the light of Christ. After years and many conversations with other women, reading research, and the insight of my own personal experiences, I no longer felt there was a conflict between the pro-choice legal position and belief in the gospel. In fact, other legal positions become much more prominent that legislating against abortion.
SteveO Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not Sunstoned, but I did wrestle with the topic for many years as a believing LDS woman because I believed it is important. I initially found ways to agree with the official church position: opposing abortion except possibly in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Yet there were also other gospel values I believed in: loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourning, and believing others can have access to the light of Christ. After years and many conversations with other women, reading research, and the insight of my own personal experiences, I no longer felt there was a conflict between the pro-choice legal position and belief in the gospel. In fact, other legal positions become much more prominent that legislating against abortion. Your view is wrong, but unlike Sunstoned, I believe everyone has a right to have a view on something as serious as abortion. You should know I identify as a cis gendered white male, so please stop me when my opinion becomes irrelevant about this issue. If I understand you correctly, abortion on demand encompasses the gospel values of loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourn, and believing others have access to the light of Christ? In all of your “research”, did you ever watch any film, see any pictures involving the “medical procedure” known as “dilation and extraction” which, as far as I know, was legal until 2004? Edited January 26, 2020 by SteveO
Meadowchik Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 51 minutes ago, SteveO said: Your view is wrong, but unlike Sunstoned, I believe everyone has a right to have a view on something as serious as abortion. You should know I identify as a cis gendered white male, so please stop me when my opinion becomes irrelevant about this issue. If I understand you correctly, abortion on demand encompasses the gospel values of loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourn, and believing others have access to the light of Christ? In all of your “research”, did you ever watch any film, see any pictures involving the “medical procedure” known as “dilation and extraction” which, as far as I know, was legal until 2004? Yes to your last question, I have. To your other, the gospel values of loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourn, and believing others have access to the light of Christ does not imply a legal prohibition of abortion. Rather, it promotes better treatment of women and better measures for abortion prevention.
SteveO Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Yes to your last question, I have. And? 42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: To your other, the gospel values of loving others, respecting agency, mourning with those that mourn, and believing others have access to the light of Christ does not imply a legal prohibition of abortion. Rather, it promotes better treatment of women and better measures for abortion prevention. Nobody opposes better treatment of women. And nobody opposes better measures for abortion prevention. That used to be the discussion way back when. The debate is far removed anymore from “safe, legal, and rare”. I have a 5 month old boy. And in my mind, at no point did my wife ever have a right to terminate him, legally, morally, what have you. And yet, if she had so elected, she could have legally, and I would have had no say in the matter. Forgive me, but I don’t know how to reconcile that with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 31 minutes ago, SteveO said: And nobody opposes better measures for abortion prevention. So you favor measures such as free contraception and mandatory comprehensive sex-Ed in schools?
Recommended Posts