Meadowchik Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 The great news is that abortions decrease when women have access to healthcare, birth control, and support like maternity leave. If we want more babies to live, we need an anti-abortion strategy which treats women as more than vessels of the unborn. What a coincidence that if women's needs are addressed, unborn life is more protected! 4
smac97 Posted October 7, 2020 Author Posted October 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Quote You aren't discussing. You are ranting. Men have as much a right to have an opinion about abortion, and to express that opinion, as women. Hmmm, not sure about that if abortion regulation only targets women. If abortion is truly the preeminent evil of the modern world, then lobby for mandated vasectomies. Why stop there? What about mandatory tubal ligations? What about mandated prohibitions against sexual behavior? 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: They can be reversed, and sperm can be frozen. Problem solved. Are you willing to sign on for yourself and all other men? Nope. A man getting a vasectomy does not result in the death of a baby in utero. Abortion, however... Thanks, -Smac
juliann Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This has perplexed me, too, about the LDS position. If there is another life involved (the unborn child's), then why is it ok to end that life because of the father's sin (rape)? It seems contradictory. Because our theology requires that all premortal spirits receive a body. We do not believe that spirits are created on an assembly line according to demand, they are co-eternal with God. Thus, if that required body can't receive a spirit, that spirit, by default has to go to another body. This is not written out but there is no other way to explain it. It is impossible without undoing a fundamental tenet. That is coupled with the lack of any definitive statement from a prophet, which given the emphasis on populating the earth in Mormon theology, is quite an omission.
juliann Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The great news is that abortions decrease when women have access to healthcare, birth control, and support like maternity leave. If we want more babies to live, we need an anti-abortion strategy which treats women as more than vessels of the unborn. What a coincidence that if women's needs are addressed, unborn life is more protected! You will notice that amid all the male ranting on the evils of abortion, the underlying societal causes are completely omitted. 3
Ahab Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The great news is that abortions decrease when women have access to healthcare, birth control, and support like maternity leave. If we want more babies to live, we need an anti-abortion strategy which treats women as more than vessels of the unborn. What a coincidence that if women's needs are addressed, unborn life is more protected! The other alternative is women as killers of their unborn children, either personally killing their children or getting someone else to do the killing for them. Maybe we just need more effective advertising, laying out the options and making them easily understandable? Basically asking the women what they would rather be: A killer, or a Mother.
pogi Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, juliann said: It is a difficult era for men who are no longer able to convincing tell women how to be women. If you want to discuss the biology of womanhood, go to medical school if you want an equal opinion. And it is the SEX of the individual not gender. From it's earliest stages, the new life has distinct biology from the woman with distinct DNA. The fetus is as much the man's biology as it is the woman's. While the woman's biology plays a critical role in sustaining the fetus, abortion is not only about the woman's biology. Is it fair for men to discuss the biology of the new life? Because abortion is as much (if not more so) about it as anything else. It is the purpose for the abortion. It is the intended target - not the woman's biology. Edited October 7, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: 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. I was talking about the actual creating or procreating the life of the child. It takes both a man and a woman to do that, and they are both equally involved in that act.
juliann Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Are women required to "go to medical school" prior to "discuss{ing} the biology of womanhood?" I doubt it. Double standards. Gotta love 'em. Well, that requirement flew right by you. Again, you are incapable of distinguishing between your perceived rights as a man and the realities of being a woman. Quote Do you likewise grouse about the Proclamation's use of "gender?" Yes, I do. I have on this board. The church is not immune to ignoring common usage, thus getting themselves into tangles over trying to say preside means equal. It is not arguable, although recent activists are busy changing definitions. Gender are the attributes assigned to the male and female sex. Sex is the biology. So unless you want to talk about high heels or toy boy trucks, don't use gender when you mean sex.
Rain Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This has perplexed me, too, about the LDS position. If there is another life involved (the unborn child's), then why is it ok to end that life because of the father's sin (rape)? It seems contradictory. First I want to be clear here though I'm pretty sure you understand this. The church isn't saying it is ok in these instances. I think there are probably a lot of times when God counsels the woman to continue with the pregnancy and it would be wrong to go against that counsel if it was clear to her. My feeling is that it is allowed by God when the circumstances make such that one path is better than another path for all involved. Since God is the only one that can know that, it is imperative for a woman to get God's answer for her specifically and the guidelines of the church fit that. Edited October 7, 2020 by Rain 4
smac97 Posted October 7, 2020 Author Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, juliann said: You will notice that amid all the male ranting on the evils of abortion, the underlying societal causes are completely omitted. "Underlying societyal causes" such as poverty? Which I addressed here? "Completely omitted," indeed. And again, I note your gender-based indignation ("amid all the male ranting..."). There are women who share my perspective "on the evils of abortion," you know. -Smac Edited October 7, 2020 by smac97
Meadowchik Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Why stop there? What about mandatory tubal ligations? What about mandated prohibitions against sexual behavior? Nope. A man getting a vasectomy does not result in the death of a baby in utero. Abortion, however... Thanks, -Smac You mean a man "not getting a vasectomy," right? Vasectomies are much less invasive than tubal ligations and much less invasive than regulating sexual behaviour. Why is prohibiting one medical procedure okay but mandating one medical procedure not okay? 2
juliann Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Underlying societyal causes" such as poverty? Which I addressed here? "Completely omitted," indeed. -Smac Yup https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 Quote Nearly one third (31%) of respondents gave partner-related reasons for seeking an abortion. Six percent mentioned partners as their only reason for seeking abortion. Partner related reasons included not having a “good” or stable relationship with the father of the baby (9%), wanting to be married first (8%), not having a supportive partner (8%), being with the “wrong guy” (6%), having a partner who does not want the baby (3%), and having an abusive partner (3%). We could also go into the pressure on women to have sex to begin with. This has been discussed before. It is a man's world in that arena. 1
Ahab Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, juliann said: Yes, I do. I have on this board. The church is not immune to ignoring common usage, thus getting themselves into tangles over trying to say preside means equal. It is not arguable, although recent activists are busy changing definitions. Gender are the attributes assigned to the male and female sex. Sex is the biology. So unless you want to talk about high heels or toy boy trucks, don't use gender when you mean sex. Fortunately we all know what a dictionary is and what it can be used to do. I would love to see more people understand the idea that all words have multiple definitions and that goal is attainable with a dictionary.
Meadowchik Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Ahab said: The other alternative is women as killers of their unborn children, either personally killing their children or getting someone else to do the killing for them. Maybe we just need more effective advertising, laying out the options and making them easily understandable? Basically asking the women what they would rather be: A killer, or a Mother. I think you're omitting very real dilemmas women face. Many women who have abortions are already mothers. Many will lose the ability to care for their children because of pregnancy. Many will lose the ability to work and therefore provide for their children. Also, it is safer for a woman to have an abortion than give birth, so pregnant women are assuming greater risk by remaining pregnant. Those are just a few. Edited October 7, 2020 by Meadowchik 2
bluebell Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 51 minutes ago, smac97 said: I can't attribute these things to sexism, either solely or even primarily. Ok. That fits with your previous thoughts on the subject so I was expecting as much. Quote 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. Because of agency, which I'm sure is highly impacted by the military's sexist legacy where women are likely to be sexually harassed (8 in 10 women) and/or assaulted (1 in 4 women) once they enlist. You can't really discuss or compare the enlistment rate of men verses women accurately without bringing sexism into the discussion. Because sexism and discrimination have a huge impact on those numbers. Quote Nevertheless, women are just as entitled as men to speak on issues pertaining to the military, notwithstanding the gender-based disparity in "impact." In general, they are neither just as entitled nor just as capable as men to speak out on military issues, for two reasons. 1) The military is a huge topic, and as such, who should get a say when completely depends on specific issues being discussed. The outcomes of military budgets are equally felt by men and women for example, and such issues should be voiced equally by both. How a military hospital handles it's birthing units, on the other hand, should be weighted towards the women and wives involved (even though it's often not), over the men. Likewise, whether or not a platoon get's a day pass or has to run extra PT, is different from the other two examples, as it affects differences in rank and not gender, with platoon leaders obviously having a much larger say than a random person on the street (or even a different platoon leader). What I'm saying is that who should get a say depends on who is affected most, and that's just as true with the military as it is anywhere else. It's just that there are not many incidents in the military where a woman would be more affected than a man, or vice versa, so deciding who has a great voice using gender lines wouldn't often be necessary. 2) Speaking of percentages of men and women serving, how the military is run, when units are deployed and to where, how units serve and what that looks like, even how they are trained, is handled mostly by men, by a large percentage, because there are more men serving and also because the military has been set up for centuries to give preference to men. Women have very little, if any, say in issues pertaining to those things, because women are minorities in (or absent from) the rooms and discussions where those decisions are made. Women most definitely do have a lesser voice in military matters, even when it affects them equally because of sexism and military culture. Quote 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. Definitely. But those places have often been (and still are sometimes) hostile to women workers, which impacts the number of women who want to work there. For example, I worked in the oil field in college. Most of my experiences were really good (and I worked for a good company, and with my dad which made a HUGE difference). But, even in the late nineties, I still had to deal with some sexual harassment, displayed pornography posters (not from my company), and a lot of condescension. The job was well within my abilities (honestly no job was too physical for a woman to do. As a 20 year old my job as just as physical as any other, and none of us could do the job without tools which enhanced our abilities beyond what we were capable of on our own). Mentally and emotionally though, my job was much harder than the men's job, because they didn't do their jobs while dealing with the harassment and disrespect like I did. No wonder fewer women are willing to work under those conditions. Greater strength is sometimes an advantage, that is very true. Rarely though. And considering the number of overweight and out of shape law enforcement and construction workers out there still working and being promoted, manly strength doesn't seem to be nearly as important as some in our society imply. Quote 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. They already are less able to express their opinions in those fields, because sexism in the work place, and their own agency, has limited their presence and therefore their voice. But, a police officer definitely should have more of a voice on policies that affect them than than those who are not as affected by the same policies. THAT is my point. Quote 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. EXACTLY! 100% of abortions are performed on pregnant women because women are pregnant. 0% of abortions are performed on men because they are not pregnant and never will be. They have less experience, less knowledge, less empathy, and less capacity for understanding compared to women on the issue. It's reasonable that they would also have less of a voice on it. 2
bluebell Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The great news is that abortions decrease when women have access to healthcare, birth control, and support like maternity leave. If we want more babies to live, we need an anti-abortion strategy which treats women as more than vessels of the unborn. What a coincidence that if women's needs are addressed, unborn life is more protected! Excellent points.
Kevin Christensen Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 16 minutes ago, juliann said: Because our theology requires that all premortal spirits receive a body. We do not believe that spirits are created on an assembly line according to demand, they are co-eternal with God. Thus, if that required body can't receive a spirit, that spirit, by default has to go to another body. This is not written out but there is no other way to explain it. It is impossible without undoing a fundamental tenet. That is coupled with the lack of any definitive statement from a prophet, which given the emphasis on populating the earth in Mormon theology, is quite an omission. In one of my NDE books, an underage girl who was pregnant reported that she dreamed that she was visited by the spirit of her unborn child, who said, "Mom, you've got to decide whether or not to have me, because I'm supposed to get to a particular family, and if you aren't going to do it, I need to make other arrangements." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
Popular Post california boy Posted October 7, 2020 Popular Post Posted October 7, 2020 14 hours ago, smac97 said: 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 You can't answer the question of when a fetus gets a soul even from a doctrinal point of view. Yet you can answer the question about black people having a soul. And if you do think that fetus have a soul, then if they are aborted, do they miss their chance to come to earth? (a second question you are unable to answer) Those who say abortion is murder is ALL SPECULATION and PERSONAL OPINION. You don't have a right to assert your speculation and personal opinion on someone else to force them to do something you want them to do based completely on speculating. What you can do is not participate or have an abortion yourself. 5
bluebell Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This has perplexed me, too, about the LDS position. If there is another life involved (the unborn child's), then why is it ok to end that life because of the father's sin (rape)? It seems contradictory. Because our theology means that the soul of the child isn't harmed, and our theology also does not teach that a soul is assigned to a body at conception. This does lead me to another question though. In Catholic theology, are miscarriages treated as the loss of a soul? I'm not speaking about from the parent's perspective but I mean theologically, is every miscarriage a soul that then loses it's chance to come to earth and is lost forever to wherever souls go who don't come to earth? 1
Ahab Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I think your omitting very real dilemmas women face. Many women who have abortions are already mother's. Many will lose the ability to care for their children because of pregnancy. Many will lose the ability to work and therefore provide for their children. It is safer for a woman to have an abortion than give birth, so pregnant women are assuming greater risk by remaining pregnant. Those are just a few. I and many, many, many other people would rather support women and all of their children than see them kill any of them. The American government provides support, and the Church does too, both individually and collectively, and many, many other individuals and organizations do too. In fact, women and their children can live their entire lives on the assistance that is and will continue to be offered to them, so there is no need for them to resort to killing their children. So those who kill their children are killing them even though they have no real need to kill them. MODERATOR: poster removed
smac97 Posted October 7, 2020 Author Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, california boy said: Quote 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. You can't answer the question of when a fetus gets a soul even from a doctrinal point of view. Correct. I can't answer it definitively. Quote Yet you can answer the question about black people having a soul. Also correct. But again, not "definitively." I believe this wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, the denial of the humanity of black people as a rationalization/justification for slavery is scarily similar to the denial of the humanity of the unborn as a rationalization/justification for elective abortion. Quote And if you do think that fetus have a soul, then if they are aborted, do they miss their chance to come to earth? (a second question you are unable to answer) I don't know what "miss their chance" means. And I've said nothing about this in relation to abortion. Quote Those who say abortion is murder is ALL SPECULATION and PERSONAL OPINION. I have not said that. Quote You don't have a right to assert your speculation and personal opinion on someone else to force them to do something you want them to do based completely on speculating. You are not accurately stating my position. And yes, I do have a right to present my personal opinion. Quote What you can do is not participate or have an abortion yourself. Sounds like "If you don't like slavery, don't participate in it." Would you find that persuasive? Thanks, -Smac Edited October 7, 2020 by smac97
smac97 Posted October 7, 2020 Author Posted October 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: EXACTLY! 100% of abortions are performed on pregnant women because women are pregnant. 0% of abortions are performed on men because they are not pregnant and never will be. They have less experience, less knowledge, less empathy, and less capacity for understanding compared to women on the issue. It's reasonable that they would also have less of a voice on it. I've also never been a slave, and I have also never been a slaveholder. But I reject the notion that this means I have "less of a voice" on this issue. Thanks, -Smac
Ahab Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Because our theology means that the soul of the child isn't harmed, and our theology also does not teach that a soul is assigned to a body at conception. Our theology also does not teach (not words I would have chosen but oh well, to use your words) that a soul is NOT assigned to a body at conception, but this is what we do know (as follows): At conception, a body of another person begins to develop within the womb of a woman (who will hereafter be referred to as the Mother of that person), and that person who is being developed within the Mother's womb is a reproduction of the Mother and the Father of that person, the Father being the one who impregnated the egg of the Mother and who caused the conception to begin. Therefore, there is life within the Mother's body even if that life is not coming from the person who will later inhabit that body when it is born on Earth, if the life continues to develop until it is born.
california boy Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I find it unfortuate that discussions about abortion so often end up with bullying tactics. I also find it unfortunate that some women seem to feel that men are not entitled to have or express an opinion about abortion, based solely on the fact that they are men. Just sayin'... Thanks, -Smac Wouldn't bullying be someone forcing another person to do something against their will simply because they have a personal opinion about. it with absolutely no proof that what they claim has any merit?
california boy Posted October 7, 2020 Posted October 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Correct. I can't answer it definitively. Also correct. Nevertheless, the denial of the humanity of black people as a rationalization/justification for slavery is scarily similar to the denial of the humanity of the unborn as a rationalization/justification for elective abortion. I don't know what "miss their chance" means. And I've said nothing about this in relation to abortion. I have not said that. You are not accurately stating my position. And yes, I do have a right to present my personal opinion. Sounds like "If you don't like slavery, don't participate in it." Would you find that persuasive? Thanks, -Smac I don't have ANY problem with someone who does not want to participate in abortion or have one. I do have a problem with those that want to force others to not have or participate in an abortion. If you are just saying you are against abortion, then I am totally fine with that.
Recommended Posts