Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Duncan said:

what if someone is raped? or incest? not everyone who has an abortion was going out and having relations with people. We had a GA here 18 months ago? his wife had 3 D&C's, she spoke on the subject and said it's so private and awful but sometimes medically you have no other option. I wouldn't condemn someone for having an abortion. I doubt they wanted one in the first place.

Could you describe one of those situations where it is medically required and with no other options?

Link to post
18 hours ago, Duncan said:

which is why abortion is so personal and I am not involved and I wouldn't dare ask someone why it happened or be judgy about it

So if something is extremely personal, then everyone should look the other way and definitely never identify an action as sin?  Incest would seem to be very personal and therefore should never be judged as wrong or a sin. 

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Sue me. Glad you got that out of the way.

Since you brought it back up, were you saying that 300 years ago slavery was moral?  Your statement was confusing.

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

Could you describe one of those situations where it is medically required and with no other options?

 I remember once hearing a story about a lady who was carrying twins, she's a member. One of them died on the day they were to be born but with a dead baby inside you have to make quick decisions, due to decomposing, and she called her bishop and he told her, you won't face disciplinary action if you have to terminate the other baby due to the other baby poisoning the area and so I don't know how it turned out but they had to make some very quick decisions. I found it sad though that one of them was about church discipline, like figure all that out later when the situation is over and the dust settles.

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

So if something is extremely personal, then everyone should look the other way and definitely never identify an action as sin?  Incest would seem to be very personal and therefore should never be judged as wrong or a sin. 

 It's also against the law. What I am saying or thought I implied is if someone was raped by a relative then yeah, I can see someone terminating that pregnancy. I would never go around and be judgy to a woman who had that happen to them, I couldn't imagine the horror of that kind of situation.

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:
Quote

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.

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.

I'm sure he was.  But that doesn't matter.  The vast majority of injuries to soldiers and law enforcement happen to the bodies of men.  The vast majority of homeless people are biologically male.  The vast majority of those sexually assaulted in prison are biologically male.  And so on.

None of that, however, means that women, by virtue of being women, have a lesser right to speak on issues pertaining to soldiers, law enforcement, homeless people, etc.  

Quote

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

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  I take issues of bodily autonomy very seriously.  But I reject sex-based restrictions on opinions about such matters, or on expressing those opinions.  I would similarly reject race- or religion-based restrictions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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)?

Based on my understanding, I think the baptism would be irrelevant.

The issue really is about sin. Excommunication happens because of sin, but being excommunicated is in and of itself not a sin or state of sin. One can be free of sin and still remain excommunicated. An example would be with abortion (nice that it's related to the topic of this thread!). Getting an abortion causes an automatic excommunication. That means the act itself causes the excommunication -- the excommunication is not declared by an authority. So, someone who has gotten an abortion is in a state of sin for the abortion AND excommunicated. This person could go confess to a priest, which would remove the sin. However, the excommunication would still remain. The bishop would be the one to remove the excommunication. Hypothetically, a person could die after confession and before the lifting of the excommunication, so they would die excommunicated but not in a state of sin, so the excommunication would have no bearing on the state of their soul.

(note: most bishops have delegated the authority to lift the excommunication for abortion to their priests, so the confession and lifting happen at the same time)

Now, this is just my understanding, and I'm not well read on these matters, so 3DOP could offer correction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sure he was.  But that doesn't matter.  The vast majority of injuries to soldiers and law enforcement happen to the bodies of men.  The vast majority of homeless people are biologically male.  The vast majority of those sexually assaulted in prison are biologically male.  And so on.

Because of our sexist society and agency.  It doesn't have to be that way.  It's just the way we've chosen to set things up here.  In Israel for example, both men and women serve in combat equally.  

God made it so that only women can become pregnant.  He did not make it so that only men can be injured, or homeless, or sexually assaulted in prison.  Those are an outcome of agency and culture.  Being biologically able to bear children is not an issue of agency or culture.

Quote

 

None of that, however, means that women, by virtue of being women, have a lesser right to speak on issues pertaining to soldiers, law enforcement, homeless people, etc.  

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You're right, because none of that has anything to do with the point being made.

And the point being made isn't even a gendered one.  It works regardless of the sex of the people involved.  Those for whom the issue has more of an impact should have more of a voice than those for whom it has less of an impact.  

Teachers should have more of a voice of what goes on in their classroom than someone for whom what goes on in the classroom has no affect.  Someone who lives in a neighborhood should have more of a voice on what is happening at the HOA meeting than someone who only lives near the neighborhood.  Someone who is making the dinner should have more of a voice on what is being made than someone who isn't.  Etc., etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

"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)

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.

 

 I know of no sins connected with the moral standard for which we cannot be forgiven. I do not exempt abortion.  Boyd K. Packer

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/morality-and-modesty/our-moral-environment?lang=eng

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

"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)

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.

I know of no sins connected with the moral standard for which we cannot be forgiven. I do not exempt abortion.  Boyd K. Packer

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/morality-and-modesty/our-moral-environment?lang=eng

That's my understanding as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Based on my understanding, I think the baptism would be irrelevant.

The issue really is about sin. Excommunication happens because of sin, but being excommunicated is in and of itself not a sin or state of sin. One can be free of sin and still remain excommunicated. An example would be with abortion (nice that it's related to the topic of this thread!). Getting an abortion causes an automatic excommunication. That means the act itself causes the excommunication -- the excommunication is not declared by an authority. So, someone who has gotten an abortion is in a state of sin for the abortion AND excommunicated. This person could go confess to a priest, which would remove the sin. However, the excommunication would still remain. The bishop would be the one to remove the excommunication. Hypothetically, a person could die after confession and before the lifting of the excommunication, so they would die excommunicated but not in a state of sin, so the excommunication would have no bearing on the state of their soul.

(note: most bishops have delegated the authority to lift the excommunication for abortion to their priests, so the confession and lifting happen at the same time)

Now, this is just my understanding, and I'm not well read on these matters, so 3DOP could offer correction.

Thanks!

Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sure he was.  But that doesn't matter.  The vast majority of injuries to soldiers and law enforcement happen to the bodies of men.  The vast majority of homeless people are biologically male.  The vast majority of those sexually assaulted in prison are biologically male.  And so on.

None of that, however, means that women, by virtue of being women, have a lesser right to speak on issues pertaining to soldiers, law enforcement, homeless people, etc.  

 

Oh for heavens sakes. None of this is restricted to the male body. Women have, can and do experience all of it. You have not named one incident that is restricted to biological males. That is a logical fallacy waiting to be named. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's my understanding as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet, just as you did with naming behaviors that are not unique to men as evidence that men have equal say in what is unique to female bodies, you are trying to apply murder (an unforgiveable sin) to abortion, a forgiveable sin. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yet, just as you did with naming behaviors that are not unique to men as evidence that men have equal say in what is unique to female bodies, you are trying to apply murder (an unforgiveable sin) to abortion, a forgiveable sin. 

Uh, when did murder become an unforgivable sin?  Who wrote that memo?  As far as I know the only time someone can't be forgiven is when denying the power of the Holy Ghost, but even in that case if they later repent from that sin then that person will be forgiven.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

I'm sure he was.  But that doesn't matter.  The vast majority of injuries to soldiers and law enforcement happen to the bodies of men.  The vast majority of homeless people are biologically male.  The vast majority of those sexually assaulted in prison are biologically male.  And so on.

Because of our sexist society and agency.  

I can't attribute these things to sexism, either solely or even primarily.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't have to be that way.  It's just the way we've chosen to set things up here.  In Israel for example, both men and women serve in combat equally.  

And yet only 14% of the voluntary armed forces are women.  This is overwhelmingly a matter of choice, not "sexism."  Men sign up far more than women do.

Nevertheless, women are just as entitled as men to speak on issues pertaining to the military, notwithstanding the gender-based disparity in "impact."

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God made it so that only women can become pregnant.  He did not make it so that only men can be injured, or homeless, or sexually assaulted in prison.

God made men bigger, stronger, more aggressive, etc.  These attributes lend themselves to service in the military, law enforcement, construction, and other fields where greater physical strength is an advantage.  So men gravitate toward these fields.

That does not mean, however, that women, being less represented in those fields, are not entitled to have an opinion about issues affecting them, or that they are not entitled to express those opinions because they are women.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those are an outcome of agency and culture.  Being biologically able to bear children is not an issue of agency or culture.

Absent force, coercion or duress, getting pregnant generally is "an issue of agency."  100% of abortions are performed on pregnant women.  The vast majority of those pregnancies are not the result of force, coercion or duress, and are instead the result of . . . choice.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And the point being made isn't even a gendered one.  

Sure seems like it.

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

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

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It works regardless of the sex of the people involved.  Those for whom the issue has more of an impact should have more of a voice than those for whom it has less of an impact.  

I guess I'm not sure what "more of a voice" means.  

Are we going to only give women 14% of the weight given to a man's "voice" on military matters?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are we going to only give women 14% of the weight given to a man's "voice" on military matters?

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's stick to abortion without bringing the military into the discussion.  Are you advocating for the idea that abortion should primarily be a woman's choice, and that the feelings of men don't matter as much?

I say the choice should be split right down the middle among both men and women.  It takes both a man and a woman to make a baby so men are involved in this issue just as much as the women.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote
Quote
Quote

"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)

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.

I know of no sins connected with the moral standard for which we cannot be forgiven. I do not exempt abortion.  Boyd K. Packer

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/morality-and-modesty/our-moral-environment?lang=eng

That's my understanding as well.

Yet, just as you did with naming behaviors that are not unique to men as evidence that men have equal say in what is unique to female bodies, you are trying to apply murder (an unforgiveable sin) to abortion, a forgiveable sin. 

I am not doing that.  "Like unto {murder}" does not mean "exactly synonymous with murder." 

The passage I quoted differentiates between murder ("kill{ing}") and things that are "like unto" murder, though not synonymous with it.  I am concerned that some elective abortions may fall within that category.  And I do not seem to be alone in that perspective.  Consider this article on abortion in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (written by . . . a woman) :

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers the elective termination of pregnancy "one of the most sinful practices of this day" (General Handbook of Instructions, 11-4), although not necessarily murder. The Lord has said, "Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6; emphasis added in Packer, p. 85).

From the Church's "Gospel Topics" entry about abortion:

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” (Doctrine and Covenants 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.

From the Church's "Eternal Marriage Student Manual":

Quote

Elder Boyd K. Packer

“Whatever the laws of man may come to tolerate, the misuse of the power of procreation, the destroying of innocent life through abortion, and the abuse of little children are transgressions of enormous proportion. For cradled therein rests the destiny of innocent, helpless children” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 21; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 18).

“Nowhere is the right of choice defended with more vigor than with abortion. Having chosen to act, and a conception having occurred, it cannot then be unchosen. But there are still choices; always a best one.

“Sometimes the covenant of marriage has been broken; more often none was made. In or out of marriage, abortion is not an individual choice. At a minimum, three lives are involved.

“The scriptures tell us, ‘Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it’ (D&C 59:6; italics added).

“Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a ‘thou shalt not.’ Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice.

“We face such sobering choices because we are the children of God” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1990, 108; or Ensign, Nov. 1990, 85).

From the March 1991 Ensign:

Quote

The practice of elective abortion is fundamentally contrary to the Lord’s injunction, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.’ (D&C 59:6.) We urge all to preserve the sanctity of human life and thereby realize the happiness promised to those who keep the commandments of the Lord.

From the October 2008 Ensign (written by then-Elder Russell M. Nelson, entitled "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless") :

Quote

{Elective abortion} matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, enlightened individuals understood the sanctity of human life. John Calvin, a sixteenth-century reformer, wrote, “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, … it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light.”

And many, many more.

If prophets and apostles can invoke D&C 59:6 as pertaining to abortion, I think I can, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
20 hours ago, Rain said:

One thing to be aware of is that not all D&Cs are abortion. Some are done after miscarriages.  Some to determine and treat causes of heavy bleeding.

Thank you, that was bothering me too.  And I would add, not all abortions are done by D&C.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Let's stick to abortion without bringing the military into the discussion.  Are you advocating for the idea that abortion should primarily be a woman's choice, and that the feelings of men don't matter as much?

No, I am arguing very much against that idea.  I think men have as much of a "voice" in the elective killing of babies in utero as they do about any other social issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
51 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

I'm sure he was.  But that doesn't matter.  The vast majority of injuries to soldiers and law enforcement happen to the bodies of men.  The vast majority of homeless people are biologically male.  The vast majority of those sexually assaulted in prison are biologically male.  And so on.

None of that, however, means that women, by virtue of being women, have a lesser right to speak on issues pertaining to soldiers, law enforcement, homeless people, etc.  

Oh for heavens sakes.  None of this is restricted to the male body.

So what?  Abortion isn't "restricted to" the woman's body.  The body, and life, of the child is involved as well.

Quote

Women have, can and do experience all of it.

No, not "all of it."  The child also experiences the abortion.  That's rather the point.

Quote

You have not named one incident that is restricted to biological males.

Sure I have.  A substantial percentage of abortions involve "biological males."  

To be sure, though, female babies are at greater risk of being aborted.  

Quote

That is a logical fallacy waiting to be named. 

I was responding to a poster who said that women are more impacted by abortion.  My counter-examples pertain to issues where men are "more impacted."

I don't think that's a fallacy. 

And in either event, I reject the notion that women should, soley by dint of their gender, have a lesser voice on, say, military matters, even though they represent only 14% of the Armed Forces.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I am arguing very much against that idea.  I think men have as much of a "voice" in the elective killing of babies in utero as they do about any other social issue.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't attribute these things to sexism, either solely or even primarily.

And yet only 14% of the voluntary armed forces are women.  This is overwhelmingly a matter of choice, not "sexism."  Men sign up far more than women do.

Nevertheless, women are just as entitled as men to speak on issues pertaining to the military, notwithstanding the gender-based disparity in "impact."

God made men bigger, stronger, more aggressive, etc.  These attributes lend themselves to service in the military, law enforcement, construction, and other fields where greater physical strength is an advantage.  So men gravitate toward these fields.

That does not mean, however, that women, being less represented in those fields, are not entitled to have an opinion about issues affecting them, or that they are not entitled to express those opinions because they are women.

Absent force, coercion or duress, getting pregnant generally is "an issue of agency."  100% of abortions are performed on pregnant women.  The vast majority of those pregnancies are not the result of force, coercion or duress, and are instead the result of . . . choice.

Sure seems like it.

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

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

I guess I'm not sure what "more of a voice" means.  

Are we going to only give women 14% of the weight given to a man's "voice" on military matters?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you have any idea how entitled you are? Women are the victims of war. They are still being victimized by the so-called peace keeping agencies. And for some bizarre reason, you can't comprehend what biological differences are. 

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

I say the choice should be split right down the middle among both men and women.  It takes both a man and a woman to make a baby so men are involved in this issue just as much as the women.

I'm obviously pro-life, so I hope no-one misconstrues my comments here in a pro-choice way. While it does take both a man and a woman to make a baby, the woman deals with the baby WAY more than the man. 9 months of pregnancy and labor. Then let's compare the number of single moms to single dads. For whatever reason (biological, social, etc), woman raise children alone much more than men do.

I'm just objecting to the statement that men are involved just as much as women.

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do you have any idea how entitled you are?

Spare me the board nannying lecture.  If you have a substantive response, I'm all ears.  If all you're going to do is hector me (again), then no thanks.

Quote

Women are the victims of war.

And baby boys are the victims of elective abortion.

So I guess all this gender-based "Shut up you have no right to speak, or even have an opinion on, this issue" stuff doesn't work out too well, huh?

Quote

They are still being victimized by the so-called peace keeping agencies.

And I condemn that.

Wait, what are your rules?  Are people like you going to allow me to have an opinion about victimization of women by "so-called peace keeping agencies?"  Or am I not allowed to have or speak an opinion about such matters because I am male?

Since when are you the arbiter of such things?  Who made you boss?

Quote

And for some bizarre reason, you can't comprehend what biological differences are. 

Yes, I can.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...