Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Someone read wiki. ;)  

Link to post
45 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

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. 

As far as I have seen no men have taken it upon themselves to lecture women on abortion.....yet.

I do think women should have a greater voice. It hits them harder and they generally bear more of the consequences.

  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

 

No one was saying much in the 80’s at least after the first kid. There is 8 years between our kids and no one ever questioned us about it at church (just my mother-in-law and it was just curiosity rather than pressure, she had 8 and was getting plenty of grandkids from others) though there were talks (lived in CA, UT, and KS during that time) about making bodies for waiting spirits.  I had a couple of conversations with other sisters at BYU on what worked best for birth control.
 

When we got our wedding interview, I asked about the policy on birth control because roommates at BYU had been talking about it and got the ‘no one’s business but your own’, though there was plenty of counsel not to limit due to waiting to finish school.  And we didn’t.  I discovered I couldn’t be married and a student at the same time as my husband couldn’t handle me in an analytic mode or deadline focus, he was done at 5 and our 1 bedroom apartment didn’t allow for undisturbed studying at night like I used to do as a student (flashlight is handy for reading in bed).  Got bored after a few months of no school, didn’t want to get a full time job because that would mean I was giving up on school rather than taking a few months off, and decided why not try as figured it would take awhile given some stuff.  Was pregnant in two weeks.  And that was the only easy thing about it....

There may have been other bishops or parts of the country that hung onto the older ‘keep pushing them out’, but I wasn’t seeing it. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
34 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

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?

Sexual promiscuity is part of it but poverty plays a large role. It is a national scandal in the United States that the lowest paying jobs do not allow people to raise a family. When you despair of ever having a traditional family the proscriptions against sexual promiscuity don’t seem to mean as much as they used to. That is part of the fallout of poverty.

I have no idea how to combat sexual promiscuity. The religious teaching angle in general is not doing a fantastic job at convincing people. Contraceptives mitigate the dangers by making it less cruel (uncommitted male not raising child) or destructive (single motherhood is not easy).

On the other hand we are seeing some strange signs. The mean age at which people start having sexual relations has even gone up a bit in the US. Maybe the freedom to choose lessens the urgency or maybe the availability of porn is dulling the desire. I have no idea what to do about any of it on a macro level.

 

Abortion is also not new in America. In the colonial times they used English Common Law which meant abortion was illegal or wrong after the quickening which is when you feel fetal movements (14-20 weeks in usually). States started making it illegal in the mid to late 1800s but the primary motivation was how dangerous it was to the mother. As techniques improved doctors pushed for criminalization. This was partly due to finding that infant development was continual and that the quickening step didn’t make much sense and partially to get rid of all the hedge doctors and midwives wandering around practicing medicine. This was partially justified by the doctors (usually) knowing more but was also just a power grab to drive the competition out of business.

Pre 1800s most abortions were sought by unmarried women who had children out of wedlock. In the mid to late 1800s there was a shift to married women having them, often when they already had children. Conservative physicians pushed back and some blamed this shift on that depraved women’s right movement. Probably not fair as the feminist movement was split on the topic even when the “free love” movement showed up (its first manifestation in the 20s and the later one in the hippie 60s). By the time of the 20th century every state had made abortion illegal though some allowed for exceptions in exceptional circumstances to save the mother or if it is due to rape or incest. Sound familiar? Even still there were a lot of abortions done extralegally. In the 1930s there was believed to be in excess of 800,000 abortions a year done by doctors. That does not include the unknown number done by others. Compare that to today where the numbers have lately been in the low 600k range and then factor in the change in population. We have come a LONG way in reducing abortion numbers.

A major turning point in abortion was a case in Arizona where a woman was pregnant (she had four children) and was taking a medication that could damage a fetus and found she was pregnant. Guessing the fetus might be damaged she sought an abortion but it was illegal. The case got a lot of publicity. In the end she travelled to Sweden and got an abortion (the fetus was found to be deformed and probably not viable). Obviously she had money and that option was not available to most. Secret abortion clinics started operating. Restrictions on abortion were weakened with some states legalizing it with restrictions and a few legalizing it outright.

Then the court cases hit and Roe v. Wade really upset the apple cart. In all honesty I think the decision was a mistake. Even supporters of abortion rights think the legal reasoning is flimsy and some would like it retried on firmer constitutional grounds. I also think it came too early. Supreme Court cases have always had the potential to cause massive changes for good or evil (looking at you Dred Scott!) but the usually end disastrously when the people are not socially and culturally ready. People and institutions were still wrestling with the issue and the sudden fiat declaration solidified support on both sides and probably froze it up when it should have stayed malleable. Think of the chaos that would have happened if the Gay Marriage decision had come in 1995. Sure, some would have cheered but the backlash would have been much more intense and much more petty. The legislatures of many states still show resistance to the abortion ruling and are legendary in their puerile pettiness.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to write a novel. I am generally pro-life but it has never hit me and I am never going to carry a child so I don’t think my opinion should mean much. That being said I do not think making abortion illegal will cut down on abortions that much and abolishing contraception, well, I think we would see an astronomical rise in the number of abortions. While I am pro-life I admit I despise many pro-life organizations that use deception and trickery on scared and frightened women and girls who are dealing with an incredibly difficult decision. A good end does not justify lies and deception.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one was saying much in the 80’s at least after the first kid. There is 8 years between our kids and no one ever questioned us about it at church (just my mother-in-law and it was just curiosity rather than pressure, she had 8 and was getting plenty of grandkids from others) though there were talks (lived in CA, UT, and KS during that time) about making bodies for waiting spirits.  I had a couple of conversations with other sisters at BYU on what worked best for birth control.
 

When we got our wedding interview, I asked about the policy on birth control because roommates at BYU had been talking about it and got the ‘no one’s business but your own’, though there was plenty of counsel not to limit due to waiting to finish school.  And we didn’t.  I discovered I couldn’t be married and a student at the same time as my husband couldn’t handle me in an analytic mode or deadline focus, he was done at 5 and our 1 bedroom apartment didn’t allow for undisturbed studying at night like I used to do as a student (flashlight is handy for reading in bed).  Got bored after a few months of no school, didn’t want to get a full time job because that would mean I was giving up on school rather than taking a few months off, and decided why not try as figured it would take awhile given some stuff.  Was pregnant in two weeks.  And that was the only easy thing about it....

There may have been other bishops or parts of the country that hung onto the older ‘keep pushing them out’, but I wasn’t seeing it. 

Okay, I could not find when the handbook changed and I looked. I guessed it was the 80s or early 90s. I was too young at the time to know much though I read enough books as a teenager to get the Brigham Young/Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie interpretation. By the time I was engaged for the first time in 2001 I knew that it was up to the couple.

Link to post
4 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.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  (D&C 59:6)

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

There are also all sorts of illicit drugs that are "not condemned in the Bible."  Nor is pornography.  Nor is spousal rape.    But since "it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore, he receiveth no reward" (D&C 58:26), we extrapolate and deduce guidance about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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?

This is the mantra isn't it.  So here are a few questions.

Do we KNOW for sure that those 62 million unborn fetuses had souls?

If they did, did they loose their opportunity to come to the earth?

Those that believe the are actual children, are they willing to commit the funds necessary to care and protect 62 million people?  Perhaps passing a bill allocating trillions and a plan to care for these fetuses carried to term should be required BEFORE outlawing abortion.

Since you are forcing the woman to carry the baby to term, should you be forced to raise that child?  Why not?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

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.  

Good thoughts, I have the same questions for people on "all animals have spirits". Bacteria, flies, other fecund organisms, really?.... all to be resurrected? Talk about the windows of heaven opening and there not being room enough to receive it... and us being buried under miles and miles of extinct species. The mind boggles at the thought.

If animals have a spirit it is likely not an individualised spirit but part of the planet's spirit that groans under iniquity etc.

The human body is home to something ridiculous like 3 trillion bacteria at any one time that are constantly replicating and dying. What about those? how do they feature in our resurrection?

Alas... we digress.

Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Yes. Baptism leaves an "indelible" mark on the soul -- it cannot be erased. The penalty of excommunication is not that your Christianity is somehow removed, but that you are now denied access to the Sacraments, from which grace flows. The hope is that the excommunicate would see this and repent and confess. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Catholics are all about the rhythm method. But then, you know, it's the time for abstinence, but... and that's why there are large families! ;) 

Link to post
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Abortion is a barbaric method of birth control . I am positive God is mad at us for using abortion for birth control. 

I suspect he is more saddened than angry. Very few get into a situation where they seek an abortion intentionally.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is the mantra isn't it.  So here are a few questions.

Do we KNOW for sure that those 62 million unborn fetuses had souls?

Do we KNOW that slaves from Africa had souls?

The denial of the humanity of black people was the first rationalization for slavery.

The denial of the humanity of the unborn is the first rationalization for abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

am positive God is mad at us for using abortion for birth control. 

I think he is very sad as Nehor says though he might get ticked off at those who do it to make money (not all do).

Now the neglect of pregnant mothers and of children born by those in power to do something about it....I think that might make him mad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, gav said:

Good thoughts, I have the same questions for people on "all animals have spirits". Bacteria, flies, other fecund organisms, really?.... all to be resurrected? Talk about the windows of heaven opening and there not being room enough to receive it... and us being buried under miles and miles of extinct species. The mind boggles at the thought.

If animals have a spirit it is likely not an individualised spirit but part of the planet's spirit that groans under iniquity etc.

The human body is home to something ridiculous like 3 trillion bacteria at any one time that are constantly replicating and dying. What about those? how do they feature in our resurrection?

Alas... we digress.

I like the idea that rather than each whatever has a separate spirit, that there are 'global ones'.  Only animals of a certain level of sentience have individual spirits, everything within them share this spirit.  Trees, rocks, oceans, fish, etc. share the spirit of the earth.

I hadn't thought about what that means for reproduction and I don't have my home teacher, the scientist, who first shared the idea with me within a church context, to brainstorm with me about it, so I may not come up with a possibility.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Any thoughts on this? 
 

image.thumb.png.e5d402fcbb670f4f058cf23e6a9ecbbc.png

 

That is kind of wicked.  I like it. (Not saying anyone prolife is like this, I suspect and hope it is a small minority)

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

I like the idea that rather than each whatever has a separate spirit, that there are 'global ones'.  Only animals of a certain level of sentience have individual spirits, everything within them share this spirit.  Trees, rocks, oceans, fish, etc. share the spirit of the earth.

I hadn't thought about what that means for reproduction and I don't have my home teacher, the scientist, who first shared the idea with me within a church context, to brainstorm with me about it, so I may not come up with a possibility.

How's this:

Genesis 1

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth agrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

20 And God said, Let the awaters bbring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and cfowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his akind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

My suspicion is that the creation took place utilising the "earth's spirit" (whatever that is) driving evolutive like processes and the first time we encounter individual spirits is with Adam and Eve in a garden.

 

Unfortunately spirits don't leave fossils...

Edited by gav
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect he is more saddened than angry. Very few get into a situation where they seek an abortion intentionally.

Heaven help us if we do get to a high percentage of intentionality. Child sacrifice has scriptural presidents. The Lord via his prophets warned that the Israel would eat their own children because they had turned from the covenant to child sacrifice. This was fulfilled both times Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed.

Israel was earlier commanded to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan. Child sacrifice was listed among the Canaanite list of offences and that was a factor in determining that they were "fully ripe".

When it comes to major threats to the rising generation I think the distance between saddened and very angry is short.

Link to post
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes. Baptism leaves an "indelible" mark on the soul -- it cannot be erased. The penalty of excommunication is not that your Christianity is somehow removed, but that you are now denied access to the Sacraments, from which grace flows. The hope is that the excommunicate would see this and repent and confess. 

Thanks Mis.  I was wondering more about after death.  What happens to the excommunicated if they die in that state?

Edited by bluebell
Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As far as I have seen no men have taken it upon themselves to lecture women on abortion.....yet.

I do think women should have a greater voice. It hits them harder and they generally bear more of the consequences.

In matters of law enforcement, firefighting, use of military force, suicide, sexual assault amongst incarcerated persons, homelessness, job-related injuries, and many other areas of life, men are "hit harder" and "bear more of the consequences."  Do we tell women that they, as a category, should have a "lesser" voice than men when discussing such issues?  Do we disparage women who choose to speak on and have a voice in such issues?

Nope and nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In matters of law enforcement, firefighting, use of military force, suicide, sexual assault amongst incarcerated persons, homelessness, job-related injuries, and many other areas of life, men are "hit harder" and "bear more of the consequences."  Do we tell women that they, as a category, should have a "lesser" voice than men when discussing such issues?  Do we disparage women who choose to speak on and have a voice in such issues?

Nope and nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps Nehor was speaking about the difference between what women biologically bear more (being the only people who can give birth), and not places where cultural issues/traditions and sexism have created unnecessary and/or artificial differences.

But absolutely yes, if an issue biologically impacts men more than women, then I would expect women to have a lesser voice on it. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Thanks Mis.  I was wondering more about after death.  What happens to the excommunicated if they die in that state?

An excommunicate is denied the sacraments that bring grace and reconciliation. The sin that caused the excommunication remains with the person until they confess and the excommunication is lifted. Someone who dies in a state of sin cannot enter heaven -- it's purgatory or worse. Having said that, though, I must point out that we are emphatically taught that no one can know the state of another's soul, now or after death.

  • Like 3
Link to post
8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

An excommunicate is denied the sacraments that bring grace and reconciliation. The sin that caused the excommunication remains with the person until they confess and the excommunication is lifted. Someone who dies in a state of sin cannot enter heaven -- it's purgatory or worse. Having said that, though, I must point out that we are emphatically taught that no one can know the state of another's soul, now or after death.

I totally understand about the bolded part, it's the same for Latter-day Saints.

One more question (thanks for answering my other ones!).  What does the indelible mark of baptism do for the soul of a person who dies while excommunicated?  Does it benefit them in some way or does it become irrelevant even though it still exists (theoretically speaking of course)?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...