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

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But you don’t know unless they say of an abortion was elective or not.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume you wouldn’t be “judge” if it was not electives defined by you (which may be different than someone else).

Legislatively-enacted statutes would define what is an "elective" (medically elective) abortion.  The vast majority are not.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe Duncan was approaching it from that POV. You can’t know without asking if an abortion was elective or not (and in certain groups it is less likely to have been elective).  

Again, I'm not understanding what you are saying here.  Whether a medical procedure is medically elective, or not, is usually not up to the patient.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

And since such abortions are traumatic and often very difficult to talk about and private, it makes sense to Duncan and to me not to ask at all.

If a woman's one-month-old baby ends up dead, we as a society are not precluded from asking questions about it.  To the contrary, such matters are investigated by law enforcement, even if that ends up being traumatic to the mother.  Ascertaining the cause of the death of the baby takes priority over the sensibilities of the mother.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who is holding slaves?

yes of course

Could you elaborate?  Why would you feel justified in this situation?

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who killed a one-month-old baby?

I don't know all the circumstances, so I can't answer

An adult, in full control of her faculties, kills her one-month-old daughter.  For any reason, or no reason at all.  Can we, as a society, be "judgy" about that?

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who euthanized a comatose elderly person?

if the person wanted that done why would I care?

"The person" being the "comatose elderly person"?  Assume the comatose person is incapable of giving consent.  Can we, as a society, be "judgy" about a person who euthanized a comatose elderly person in that circumstance?

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

as long as the Dr. is fine with it,

Doctors get to decide?  What metrics do they use?

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't want anyone doing anything against their will

Does "anything" include abortion?  The child really isn't in a position to communicate its "will."  

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Can we just shrug off things like this and say "I am not involved?"

why not? I am not in the Legal or medical profession. 

You are a citizen of the United States.  We are supposed to be involved in the legislative and political processes by which laws are enacted and enforced.

Can we shrug off slavery by saying "I am not in the legal or medical profession"?

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't like rapists getting a slap on the wrist or people who hurt others getting away with it. I can't do anything about that directly but I can vote in people who bring in tougher measures to deal with these situations.

Sure.  But can't the same be said about abortion?  Slavery?  Many of us can't do anything directly about these things, but we can vote in people who can.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I agree. 

It is race war upon blacks.  

Joe Biden has been excommunicated by the church over his views on abortion.  In other words, he has been forbidden communion.

But, as a libertarian, I don't think abortion should be legislated against.

Could you elaborate on that last point?  Why shouldn't abortion be legislatively regulated?

Can slavery be legislated against?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I agree. 

It is race war upon blacks.  

Joe Biden has been excommunicated by the church over his views on abortion.  In other words, he has been forbidden communion.

But, as a libertarian, I don't think abortion should be legislated against.

Biden has not been excommunicated. Last year a priest, acting on his own (controversially, I might add), denied him Communion. That is not excommunication. Excommunication is a penalty for specific acts and it deprives the person of receiving any of the sacraments except for confession, which is the way forward to reverse the excommunication.

[Bob Crockett]

As abortion is not condemned in the Bible, and that is my measuring stick for morals, I can't say that legislation ought to ban it.

The same argument can be made about slavery, but I have a real hard time expressing the same opinion about slavery.  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

a woman's one-month-old baby ends up dead, we as a society are not precluded from asking questions about it. 

The context of the question was in a personal conversation with an individual woman, not a discussion Society is having. See Duncan’s first post on the subtopic. 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was thinking about LDS and Catholic families traditionally being large. The reason for Catholics is clear -- prohibition against birth control. So why were LDS families large? I did a bit of poking around and found a website that linked to an article on your church's website that says this (bold mine):

That's a letter from the First Presidency. They say that birth control is against the teachings of the LDS church and those that use it will "reap disappointment."

When and how did this change?

President Gordon B. Hinckley taught: “The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity. … But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord.”  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/06/young-adults/planning-your-family-according-to-gods-plan?lang=eng .

Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught: “When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions —decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.”  He also added, “We should not judge one another on this matter.”  Andersen, “Children,” Oct 2011 General Conference, 28, 30.

“Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.”   Dr. Homer Ellsworth, Ensign, Aug 1979, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/08/i-have-a-question/are-there-gospel-guidelines-for-family-planning?lang=eng .

“The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.”  Church Handbook 2, 21.4.4,  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies-and-guidelines/selected-church-policies.title86?lang=eng#title86#title86 .

[Bob Crockett]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Biden has not been excommunicated. Last year a priest, acting on his own (controversially, I might add), denied him Communion. That is not excommunication. Excommunication is a penalty for specific acts and it deprives the person of receiving any of the sacraments except for confession, which is the way forward to reverse the excommunication.

I'm not an expert on Catholic excommunication, but the very definition of excommunication is to deny communion.  But I don't really know.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was thinking about LDS and Catholic families traditionally being large. The reason for Catholics is clear -- prohibition against birth control. So why were LDS families large? I did a bit of poking around and found a website that linked to an article on your church's website that says this (bold mine):

That's a letter from the First Presidency. They say that birth control is against the teachings of the LDS church and those that use it will "reap disappointment."

When and how did this change?

My memory is either late 60’s or early 70’s. I will try and find something that pinpoints the official change. 
 

wiki has a pretty good discussion on it, though the last bit about the 2003 manual...I am thinking that accidentally slipped through editors as it has been standard Iirc to say it is between God and the couple since I was married in 1980 and while there was still a push to have large families, to not limit them for financial reasons, that kind of language faded fast imo. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_Mormonism#Birth_control_and_abortion

Edited October 6, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

Joe Biden has been excommunicated by the church over his views on abortion.  In other words, he has been forbidden communion.

Joe Biden has never been excommunicated by the RC Church.  He was merely denied communion, which is not excommunication.  Biden takes the same view you do, Bob.  He agrees with his Church's doctrine, but is unwilling to make it a legal requirement for others.

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, as a libertarian, I don't think abortion should be legislated against.

Yes, it is a religious decision for each person.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not an expert on Catholic excommunication, but the very definition of excommunication is to deny communion.  But I don't really know.

Here are the actions that require or will automatically cause excommunication:

• Apostates, heretics, and schismatics
• Desecration of the Eucharist
• A person who physically attacks the pope
• A priest who in confession solicits another to violate the sixth commandment
• A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate
• A priest who violates the seal of the confessional
• A person who procures an abortion
• Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty

Denial of Holy Communion is not an act of excommunication. Under Canon Law, a priest is to deny communion to someone who has been excommunicated (or placed under interdict -- that's another conversation) and someone who is obstinate in continuing to commit grave sin. Biden was denied communion by the priest because of his stance on abortion, which the priest determined to be a committal of grave sin, so it was a denial under Canon Law, not because of excommunication. Some agreed, some disagreed -- the whole issue of pro-choice politicians and communion is in dispute. Some bishops allow it, some deny it. I think it would be useful to have a clear statement from Rome on the issue.

Just to clarify.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not an expert on Catholic excommunication, but the very definition of excommunication is to deny communion.  But I don't really know.

Even in our faith there are those that don’t take the Sacrament and are not excommunicated. 

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  Why would you feel justified in this situation?

An adult, in full control of her faculties, kills her one-month-old daughter.  For any reason, or no reason at all.  Can we, as a society, be "judgy" about that?

"The person" being the "comatose elderly person"?  Assume the comatose person is incapable of giving consent.  Can we, as a society, be "judgy" about a person who euthanized a comatose elderly person in that circumstance?

Doctors get to decide?  What metrics do they use?

Does "anything" include abortion?  The child really isn't in a position to communicate its "will."  

You are a citizen of the United States.  We are supposed to be involved in the legislative and political processes by which laws are enacted and enforced.

Can we shrug off slavery by saying "I am not in the legal or medical profession"?

Sure.  But can't the same be said about abortion?  Slavery?  Many of us can't do anything directly about these things, but we can vote in people who can.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I can't imagine a situation in today's day where slavery would be justified. Every one in a while you hear about someone holding women hostage as s*x slaves, its' illegal to do those things so I would feel judgy for people who hold or traffic human beings in slavery.

yes, we can be judgy about someone who kills a one month old baby, the law is against that and people typically get caught and go to jail.

here in Canada there was a hug debate about euthanasia and these issues are coming up, IIRC you can't euthanize someone against their will, they have to decide and a Dr. can't be forced to do it, but I don't know all the issues. I know there are some lawsuits going on when something wasn't done right.

if you see something amiss, like you suspect someone is kidnapped or going to be kidnapped then say something, being a good samaritan. Vote in people that you think will carry out the law, or change the law

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Because we don't live in a theocracy, we also must include the perspective of atheists and secularists who may not believe that the soul exists. 

Soul isn't necessarily a religious word. The argument would likely be over the immortality of a soul, not the life essense or whatever you want to call it itself. Abortion advocates often say fetuses are just a collection of cells, i.e., it's not a "life."  So regardless of religion, at some point that soul/essence that differentiates a bunch of cells from a living person has to appear. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who is holding slaves?

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who killed a one-month-old baby?

Would you feel justified in being "judgy" about a person who euthanized a comatose elderly person?

Can we just shrug off things like this and say "I am not involved?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I think one main difference would be that the church recognizes that not all abortions are sinful, whereas each of the practices you listed above are.  There's also the 'judge not' commandment, where for most of us, someone else's specific abortion would not be in our jurisdiction to pass judgement on (and thank goodness for that because that would be a heavy burden to bear with someone).    

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here are the actions that require or will automatically cause excommunication:

• Apostates, heretics, and schismatics
• Desecration of the Eucharist
• A person who physically attacks the pope
• A priest who in confession solicits another to violate the sixth commandment
• A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate
• A priest who violates the seal of the confessional
• A person who procures an abortion
• Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty

Denial of Holy Communion is not an act of excommunication. Under Canon Law, a priest is to deny communion to someone who has been excommunicated (or placed under interdict -- that's another conversation) and someone who is obstinate in continuing to commit grave sin. Biden was denied communion by the priest because of his stance on abortion, which the priest determined to be a committal of grave sin, so it was a denial under Canon Law, not because of excommunication. Some agreed, some disagreed -- the whole issue of pro-choice politicians and communion is in dispute. Some bishops allow it, some deny it. I think it would be useful to have a clear statement from Rome on the issue.

Just to clarify.

This is an aside, but what does excommunication do to the soul of the excommunicated according to Catholic doctrine?  They remain baptized, right?  

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

 Abortion advocates often say fetuses are just a collection of cells, i.e., it's not a "life."  

I think you mean a human life.  Even the zygote is a life. 

The argument is purely an argument about nomenclature, of which there is no system or reason to guide us.  It is therefore kind of arbitrary.  We just make up when a life becomes a human life, and no one agrees because there is no absolute reason or objective guiding system. 

Religiously, however, we are taught that all life has a spirit.  This raises questions for me:  If a zygote is alive (religionists and secularists agree that it is), then it must have a spirit.  If a zygote is not human, then what kind of spirit does it have?    Are there zygote spirits in heaven that are distinct from human spirits?  That just seems absurd.  Will zygotes be resurrected separate from us as distinct beings?  What happens when the zygote divides in two?  Are there now 2 distinct spirits and 2 distinct life's?  Are these spirits just given the boot once it/they become a "human" as defined by fairly arbitrary human nomenclature?  Or is it still just one life - a human life with the same human spirit giving it life?

Just some things for people to think about.  

Edited October 6, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

Soul isn't necessarily a religious word. The argument would likely be over the immortality of a soul, not the life essense or whatever you want to call it itself. Abortion advocates often say fetuses are just a collection of cells, i.e., it's not a "life."  So regardless of religion, at some point that soul/essence that differentiates a bunch of cells from a living person has to appear. 

It seems like the only difference between a collection of cells and a living person is inflated lungs and a mother not trying to abort.  Inflated lungs (or a breathing baby) from a mother trying to abort is still considerd to be just a "collection of cells".  Intent of the mother, for many pro-abortion, is really what makes the difference between who is a person or not.

[rpn]

Poverty is not evil.   Not taking action personally do alleviate suffering associated with it, when you have the means to do so IS.

[strappinglad]

It least we are not as bad as ancient Israel/Cannanites. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/child-sacrifice.html

then again ...

I'm surprised the men in this thread have not been admonished for having an opinion on abortion. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

A tad anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, perhaps..?

To quote Monty Python:

No! No! No. No. Yes. Yes, a bit.

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I think poverty is a greater evil than abortion.  You want to drop abortions significantly, work on poverty. 
 

73% of those requesting abortions cited financial reasons. 
 

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr

https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/us-abortion-patients
 

The mass slaughter of 62 million innocent unborn sons and daughters of God is a lesser sin than poverty? You really believe this? Wouldn’t you agree that sexual promiscuity is the real root of the abortion problem?

[Chum]

My favorite thing about an abortion debate is that everything that can be said is being said and I can sit it out.  Truly, I'm not throwing shade on the participants. I'm just enjoying that I have nothing novel to offer.

My least favorite thing: My theory that the primary purpose of abortion legislation is to distract the electorate from ongoing legislative & governmental scumbaggery. Also how effective it is at doing exactly that.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's a letter from the First Presidency. They say that birth control is against the teachings of the LDS church and those that use it will "reap disappointment."

When and how did this change?

Here is the current policy on birth control:

Quote

 

Birth Control

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife (see 2.1.2).

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear (see 2.1.3). The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

The Church discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization includes procedures such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. However, this decision is a personal matter that is ultimately left to the judgment and prayerful consideration of the husband and wife. Couples should counsel together in unity and seek the confirmation of the Spirit in making this decision.

Surgical sterilization is sometimes needed for medical reasons. Members may benefit from counseling with medical professionals.

 

This is slightly less official. It is the gospel topics article on Birth Control and is probably what the average member would find if they typed in a search:

Quote

 

Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children in loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The scriptures declare, “Children are a heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

 

Historically I think the first condemnation of birth control came from Brigham Young. Joseph Smith talked about having children as a good thing but to my knowledge did not condemn any form of birth control. 

In 1942 the apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote an article in a church magazine saying the rhythm method was an acceptable method in spacing children.

What do you call a couple that practices the rhythm method? Parents! Sorry....old joke.

In the 60s President Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie both condemned birth control or choosing to stop after two or three children as bad and punishable.

In 1969 there was a First Presidency statement that condemned it but allowed for some consideration for the wife that took the greater part of the burden on herself. Ezra Taft Benson continued in this vein through the 80s. The last recorded incident of the church semi-officially taking a stand against birth control was a quote in a manual from Spencer W. Kimball in 2003.

 

I think the trend towards allowing the use of birth control probably hit in 1994 when President Hinckley said:

 “I am offended by the sophistry that the only lot of the Latter-day Saint woman is to be barefoot and pregnant. It’s a clever phrase, but it’s false. Of course we believe in children. The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord. The official statement of the Church includes this language: ‘Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have the greater responsibility not only of bearing children but of caring for them through childhood, and should help them conserve their health and strength. Married couples should exercise self-control in all of their relationships. They should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel’”

This is similar to the language in the current handbook. The instruction is still that children are good and generally more is good is still accepted but there are reasons not to have more children. I don’t doubt that many people are sinning in the Church by choosing not to have children but it is not my place to figure out who falls in that area.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As abortion is not condemned in the Bible, and that is my measuring stick for morals, I can't say that legislation ought to ban it.

The same argument can be made about slavery, but I have a real hard time expressing the same opinion about slavery.  

It is not condemned in the Bible but it is permissible for it to be punished by civil action:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”