Jump to content

Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

He was adopted from foster care.  She also has adopted his older sister. It wasn't family that stepped up but a stranger who wanted children and felt led to them.  There is a long list of people here who would adopt a drug addicted baby.

His bio mom is not related to us. 

Then bravo for them to take him on.  It is wonderful imo  when siblings can stay together in most cases of adoption.  

Link to post
46 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is this something you are assuming or something you have seen numbers on?  While I would assume that we would have far fewer out of marriage pregnancies if we observed the law of chastity, I've not see anything that shows that we would almost eliminate abortions in the church due to breaking the law of chastity. 

 

It seems axiomatic to me that if more people in the Church obeyed the Law of Chastity ("Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage") there would be fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions. I'm not talking about those that may have conditional decisions to make under the Church's guidelines. Where should we look for numerical evidence?

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think her argument is that it is one thing to feel that abortions should be stopped, it is another to act on it.  
 

Are men who say they want to stop abortion having vasectomies or using condoms if they are having recreational sex not wanting to produce children?

Are these men pushing for better pre and postnatal care of pregnant women?

Are they pushing for more shelters for women and children victims of domestic violence as well affordable housing afterwards so that domestic violence will stop being the number one reason women and children are homeless?

Are they pushing for wide and free access to birth control?

Are they pushing for quality sex education that realistically portrays young, single parenthood and ways to avoid such, including but beyond abstinence?

Are they pushing for laws making it easier to collect child support?

There are probably several other issues that if men or women want abortion to go down, they need to actively support both politically and financially if they want to see abortion become an anomaly. 

In no way do all men oppose such things, as Blair states, "men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion."  Inasmuch as these efforts comply with the Lord's Law of Chastity where applicable, yes, abortion could become more an anomaly than a normality. Even if they know nothing of the Law, our common humanity should motivate us to care for those who need care, education, support, protection and nurture of the innocents in the womb, etc. I think many men and women of good will have that in mind.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, pogi said:

But not a human being.  A zygote is 1 human being.  A blastocyst is 1 human being.  An adult human with trillions of human cells is 1 human being.   

And were your biologists asked when a human’s life began? Or when an embryo becomes a human being?

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems axiomatic to me that if more people in the Church obeyed the Law of Chastity ("Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage") there would be fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions. I'm not talking about those that may have conditional decisions to make under the Church's guidelines. Where should we look for numerical evidence?

Wait. Wait!!!???  Not just adultery.  Fornication was also prohibited last time I checked.  That means ALL out of wedlock pregnancies could be avoided!!!!

You mean all the abortion angst could be avoided by obeying the Lord's commandments???  What a concept!

Edited by mrmarklin
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems axiomatic to me that if more people in the Church obeyed the Law of Chastity ("Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage") there would be fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions. I'm not talking about those that may have conditional decisions to make under the Church's guidelines. Where should we look for numerical evidence?

That was the thing for me.  I don't know if we have a lot of abortions except for the exemptions.  In my 52 years I know one person where that would apply.  I know lots of members who have out of marriage pregnancies.  So when you said, "Of course, we should see fewer elective abortions in the Church. Those horrendous numbers" it just didn't go along with my experience. 

I was taking horrendous numbers of abortions in the church as meaning "numerous" so I read it as "there are numerous abortions in the church caused by people not living the law of chastity."  But maybe you meant horrendous as in  "horrifying" so that could just be one?

But if you meant "numerous" it sounds like you either have access to the numbers or you have had experience with them.  I wondered if that was something you knew or just have an assumption on.  

My assumption is that within the church there are far more exceptions than law of chastity violations or at least a greater percentage than everyone else, but maybe I'm just naïve.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/6/2020 at 11:28 AM, smac97 said:

Hmm:

Bishop Hanefeldt is bishop of the Diocese of Grand Island in the state of Nebraska.

The article goes into politics, which I want to avoid in this thread.  Instead, I wonder what your thoughts are about abortion as the “preeminent evil in our culture.”  I feel that we as a society have come a long way in advancing and refining and improving our approach to race and gender issues.  Things that were previously enshrined in law (Jim Crow laws, lack of suffrage) have been changed.  But abortion - specifically, the elective killing of babies in utero - was generally legalized in 1973.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, I think it could be said that the "preeminent evil in our culture" was slavery.  Now, is it abortion?  And is it in our collective moral "blind spot," much in the same way slavery was for our ancestors?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So you've asked us and maybe you have told us your personal feelings and I missed it.  Do you feel it is the "preeminent evil in our culture"?

Link to post
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

You mean all the abortion angst could be avoided by obeying the Lord's commandments???  What a concept!

This ignores that there are married, even happily married couples who believe an abortion is the right thing for their family. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Rain said:

That was the thing for me.  I don't know if we have a lot of abortions except for the exemptions.  In my 52 years I know one person where that would apply.  I know lots of members who have out of marriage pregnancies.  So when you said, "Of course, we should see fewer elective abortions in the Church. Those horrendous numbers" it just didn't go along with my experience. 

I was taking horrendous numbers of abortions in the church as meaning "numerous" so I read it as "there are numerous abortions in the church caused by people not living the law of chastity."  But maybe you meant horrendous as in  "horrifying" so that could just be one?

But if you meant "numerous" it sounds like you either have access to the numbers or you have had experience with them.  I wondered if that was something you knew or just have an assumption on.  

My assumption is that within the church there are far more exceptions than law of chastity violations or at least a greater percentage than everyone else, but maybe I'm just naïve.  

I think I may not have been clear, or that you have misunderstood me. I took the "horrendous numbers" to mean world-wide, not within the Church. I think that number is horrendous. That is what I was referring to. I agree with your assumption that there should be fewer in the Church because of our emphasis on chastity before and during marriage.

I'm not aware of any tracking program of the numbers of abortions in the Church. It's not something that we would announce in meetings or ferret out of internet searches. In my experience I don't know anyone in the Church that has gone through an abortion. It never came up when I was a bishop or in the several bishoprics in which I have served.  I may recall hearing a few people in testimony meetings talking about it before they became members, but that memory is not secure.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And were your biologists asked when a human’s life began? Or when an embryo becomes a human being?

Well, that's the $64,000 Dollar Question, isn't it? How do you think it should be answered?

What is the scientific test for human beingness?

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

This ignores that there are married, even happily married couples believe an abortion is the right thing for their family. 

Would you recommend they follow the Church's guidelines?

Link to post
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that's the $64,000 Dollar Question, isn't it? How do you think it should be answered?

What is the scientific test for human beingness?

What is the Lord's test?  Clearly abortion is not murder, which is an unforgivable sin, because one can repent of being part of an abortion.  In addition, our Church, unlike others, carves out certain exceptions in which an abortion is is allowed after thoughtful prayer.

So obviously, life begins for the Lord's purposes, at conception.

Edited by mrmarklin
spelling
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that's the $64,000 Dollar Question, isn't it? How do you think it should be answered?

What is the scientific test for human beingness?

There isn’t one, but Pogi is pretending there is with some fancy word play. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, longview said:

There is a HUGE waiting list of parents desperately wanting to adopt.  Sadly but too many of the mothers do not want to bother with the process of putting up for adoption.  Also, abortion mills work strenuously to divert mothers from this option.

Not a single sign?  You must have been feverishly averting your gaze away from the protesters across the street from Planned Parenthood.  Have you seen the amazing movie:  "Unplanned" ?  Abortion protesters have worked tirelessly over many decades to persuade young mothers from taking the life of their child.

Always keep in mind that the DNA of the child in the womb is distinct from the mother.  It is appalling for pro-aborts to claim that the "fetus" is just another organ in the woman's body.

That there are a lot of people in the US willing to adopt if the child is white, healthy, and a newborn. In those circumstances you can find people who will pay for your medical care. Throw out any one of those and the odds plummet.

I would add that I have never heard of a positive experience from a protester trying to talk a woman out of an abortion. Most of those who try to talk them out of it lure them in with lies or offers of a free exam and then hit them hard with the argument. It is deceptive and I find it disgusting antithetical to the love they profess they have.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, pogi said:

When it comes to all other animals and forms of life, biologists are the specialists and authorities we turn to to learn when life beings biologically.  Why should it be different with humans?  We are animals too.

Can you show me any kind of consensus as to when biological human life begins with moralists and philosophers?  I doubt it.  My guess is the consensus will be "go ask the biologists, this is not a question of morality.  Once that has been established...then we can talk about morality."

I understand that there are moral implications which need to be hashed out.  But before we can address those, we need a scientific consensus as to when biological human life begins.  And we have one.  An overwhelming one!  This (I'm not talking about abortion in case anyone is confused) is a biological question, not a moral one. 

Again, the biologists just know when the seed of a person exists. Great. Is it a person. In my paradigm it is not until it has a spirit and if spirits enter at conception than there are a lot of people dying and we do nothing about it. I do not accept that a zygote is a person, a child of my heavenly parents. A biologist is not going to convince me otherwise. My own church’s doctrine convinces me otherwise. That any allowance is made for a non-life threatening abortion suggests it is not murder. That the authorities do not treat abortion as murder is also instructive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There isn’t one, but Pogi is pretending there is with some fancy word play. 

Pogi can speak for himself. Very well, in fact. I was asking you.

Link to post
5 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

Birth control is cheap or free from many places. If you can't afford a baby and don't want to use birth control, then don't have sex. Seems pretty simple to me. Oh and two forms of birth control if you don't want a baby. 

What “many places”? Are they easily accessible?

Don’t have sex. That rule has been tried throughout history and it doesn’t have a fantastic success rate. I agree it would be the ideal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Again, the biologists just know when the seed of a person exists. Great. Is it a person. In my paradigm it is not until it has a spirit and if spirits enter at conception than there are a lot of people dying and we do nothing about it. I do not accept that a zygote is a person, a child of my heavenly parents. A biologist is not going to convince me otherwise. My own church’s doctrine convinces me otherwise. That any allowance is made for a non-life threatening abortion suggests it is not murder. That the authorities do not treat abortion as murder is also instructive.

In your paradigm, when does the the spirit enter the body?

The Church has given this instruction, though....

Quote

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Apparently there can be things that are like unto murder.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, pogi said:

No, the first was not killed. 

It divided. 

I believe you will find that asexual reproduction in humans is an abomination!!!!!!

Now I just need to figure out how to clone myself asexually. Then I can multiply the number of spirits I have. :vader:

Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Many men LDS or not want desperately to prevent rampant abortions.

I admit I would like abortions to nearly stop, ideally because no one wants one. I would be especially interested if there were “rampant abortions” but that is not the case. They are  not common.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In your paradigm, when does the the spirit enter the body?

The Church has given this instruction, though....

Apparently there can be things that are like unto murder.

Brigham Young said it was when the mother felt independent life but that could have been a cultural thing since that was the standard rule for when abortion was no longer an option at the time. I don’t know.

I am not suggesting abortion is not serious. When I was in the Mission Field we had the (possibly irreverent) Big 5 and the Big 1. The Big 1 was murder which meant a long road to baptism and 1st Presidency approval. For the Big 5 we used the acronym HAPPI (Homosexuality, Abortion, Prison, Prostitution, Incest) which meant that you needed Mission President approval for a baptism. It is not treated as murder. I understand why these gradations of sin exist for baptismal permission but I have come more and more to the conclusion that murder is serious, whatever Corianton did was almost as serious, and the rest vary so much that it is hard to tell which are better or worse than others. I do have a personal rule of thumb that any sin that is predatory is worse than the equivalent sin without it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Pogi can speak for himself. Very well, in fact. I was asking you.

With respect you asked for the “scientific” test for something that is firmly in the realm of moral philosophy.  For me it is clear that there is no difference between a fetus brought to term one minute pre birth and an infant post birth. There is also no way that a zygote is human person in the same way an infant is. Anyone who says they actually believe that is lying to themselves. 
 

Where in the middle do we draw the line? I think actually Supreme Court rulings to date have done a good job walking this line. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect you asked for the “scientific” test for something that is firmly in the realm of moral philosophy.  For me it is clear that there is no difference between a fetus brought to term one minute pre birth and an infant post birth. There is also no way that a zygote is human person in the same way an infant is. Anyone who says they actually believe that is lying to themselves. 
 

Where in the middle do we draw the line? I think actually Supreme Court rulings to date have done a good job walking this line. 

Thanks, but I’m not a liar. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you recommend they follow the Church's guidelines?

Yep

Link to post
42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Again, the biologists just know when the seed of a person exists. Great. Is it a person. In my paradigm it is not until it has a spirit and if spirits enter at conception than there are a lot of people dying and we do nothing about it. I do not accept that a zygote is a person, a child of my heavenly parents. A biologist is not going to convince me otherwise. My own church’s doctrine convinces me otherwise. That any allowance is made for a non-life threatening abortion suggests it is not murder. That the authorities do not treat abortion as murder is also instructive.

I understand that religions may have different perspectives about spiritual life.  Our church doesn't take a position on when the spirit enters the body, and has no doctrine that should necessarily convince you that spiritual life doesn't begin at conception.  There are doctrinal argument to be make that the spirit does give life to the zygote, however, and that it is not some kind of soul-less zombie life form.  Strictly biologically speaking, a human beings' life has many developmental stages, the zygote being one of them.  It is a human being. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...