Jump to content

Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion


Recommended Posts

On October 19, Terryl Givens published the following article in Public Square MagazineA LATTER-DAY SAINT DEFENSE OF THE UNBORN

The subtitle: "It has become popular for people of faith to seek a middle ground in the abortion debate of being 'personally opposed' while according choice to others. This is why I think that position is problematic."

I think the article is very much worth a read.  

On October 21, Terryl's son, Nathaniel posted the following on his personal blog: Pro-Life: A Fiercely Held Moderate Position

Nathaniel's article notes his father's piece, and also points to a post from Sam Brunson at By Common Consent that responds to Terryl's piece. 

All three articles are worth reading. 

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I think it was President Oaks who wrote (a book if I recall correctly) that the gospel doesn't require someone to have a child they got by rape.   It was about agency.   And about the fact that we do not know when one specific spirit is permanently attached to any given body.  

  (And it is important to note that there has never been any church approval for abortion, just a recognition that the church would not take action against a person's membership in certain specific situations --- thereby leaving it to God to decide.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you know that abortion is statistically safer than giving birth?

For whom?

 

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you know that it is not uncommon for doctors to refuse permanent sterilisation like tubal ligations to some women? Did you know that women are more likely to be murdered when pregnant? 

These are real-life obstacles which stand in the way of reducing abortions.

I wouldn't call that a real obstacle.  If a woman wants a tubal ligation, nothing stands in her way.   I would say that it is MUCH more uncommon then common. 

Just curious about the murder comment - are you suggesting that women get abortions to avoid being murdered?  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank goodness for sense in the third article:

"The rational: to the extent that he wants to reduce the prevalence of abortion, his argument is oddly lacking in proposals for how to reduce the prevalence of abortion. In fact, his whole policy proposal seems to consist of: Make it illegal.

Why no support for, for example, free access to high-quality contraception? A Brookings study found that access to high-quality contraception reduces both unwanted pregnancies and abortions. An NCBI study found that access to high-quality contraception led to a statistically-significant reduction in abortions, repeat abortions, and teenage birth rates. And a Washington University in St. Louis study found that access to free contraception reduced abortions by 62-78% as compared to the national rate.

To the extent we want to end abortions, rather than just ban abortions, it’s worth looking at providing free contraception. Not only is it tremendously effective, but it doesn’t face the same sort of constitutional impediments that direct regulation of abortion does.

The moral disgust: you know what I consider disgusting? Unnecessary maternal death. The NCBI reports that unsafe abortion accounts for about 13% of maternal deaths. That adds up to about 47,000 women dying each year (plus roughly 5 million who suffer from temporary or permanent disability). The vast majority of these unsafe abortions occur in countries where abortion is severely restricted.

You know what else I consider morally repugnant? Racial inequality. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research reports that access to legal abortion significantly increase Black women’s educational attainment (in part because prior to Roe, Black women had less access to contraception). The Institute also reports that access to abortion has increased women’s labor force participation (and especially increased Black women’s labor force participation).

In addition to the racial inequality component, there’s a socioeconomic inequality component: 75% of abortion patients in 2014 had incomes of less than 200% of the poverty line, and nearly 50% were below the poverty line.

You know what else I find deeply troubling? The state exercising its coercive power to force women to stay pregnant for 9 months. Especially since the state has significant non-coercive tools at its disposal to reduce—significantly—the prevalence of abortion."

The first two focus solely on legality of abortion. They'd reduce the whole human matter to the  state forcing women to continue a pregnancy, but then not address everything else about situations where abortions are more or less likely. Those legalistic approaches seem willing to sacrifice the good for an unattainable perfect, and that to me is the evil of the modern pro-life movement. 

If you want to reduce abortions, help women! Support a living wage, support parental leave, support better access to birth control and medical care. 

I like the 3rd one too, and loved your comments, meadowchik.  I will add 2 points:

1.  If the intent is to decrease the amount of abortions then believers need to be better at prayer.  Only god, if he is there, can stop or cause abortions that aren't elective...and in truth many abortions that are elective, hes at fault for too.   Afterall women who choose abortions likely seek wisdom from god in so choosing.  

2.  I would include in meadowchik's list from her last paragraph, education, and putting more onus on the man.  

Link to post
5 hours ago, pogi said:

For whom?

 

I wouldn't call that a real obstacle.  If a woman wants a tubal ligation, nothing stands in her way.   I would say that it is MUCH more uncommon then common. 

Just curious about the murder comment - are you suggesting that women get abortions to avoid being murdered?  

She has to have a doctor to perform it, though. Abortions are also much less common than common.

Regarding murder, I am saying that women might seek abortions to seek safety. If they are victims of domestic violence, then pregnancy might make them more vulnerable to domestic violence, as the murder statistic demonstrates, since those murders are by and large at the hands of their partners/spouses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He didn't bother to ask after the nature of fetal death:  Is it murder?  If so, how can the LDS Church (unlike the RC Church) allow cases in which murder of fetuses can be carried out (rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother).  Indeed, Genesis 2:7 seems to claim that ensoulment takes place when the baby takes its first breath, not at the moment of conception.

If that is the case, then why should abortion be prohibited at all? I believe God forming man from the dust and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life is not the same as God forming a human being in a mother’s womb.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was surprised at how deeply flawed Terryl's piece is, certainly not the typically profound comments I have come to expect from him.

Right at the outset he showed his utter contempt for the opposing position by attacking the "general lack of thoughtful rationales for their embrace of the pro-choice position. Frequently, I found they were uninformed, unreflective," etc.

In his very strong views on fetal pain and suffering, he ignored the pain many newborns undergo with circumcision, and did not bother to comment on how the animal rights people would be appalled at his cavalier consideration of only human pain -- ignoring the pains of various forms life in general, not just our pets.  The argument from pain, taken to its logical conclusion, would make all of us vegetarians.

He didn't bother to ask after the nature of fetal death:  Is it murder?  If so, how can the LDS Church (unlike the RC Church) allow cases in which murder of fetuses can be carried out (rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother).  Indeed, Genesis 2:7 seems to claim that ensoulment takes place when the baby takes its first breath, not at the moment of conception.

Meantime, what about all the spontaneous abortions and stillbirths which the body itself does -- many more than any surgical abortions.  Moreover, the RC Church, which is the most extreme in its opposition to reproductive choice, also disallows reasonable contraception -- thus making unwanted pregnancies more likely, and thus making more abortions likely.  As usual, due to their moral claims on this matter, the RC Church wants to legislatively prohibit abortion in a secular state.  A kind of Catholic version of Sharia Law.

Those most in favor of anti-abortion laws are also those who oppose healthcare for all, and who deny pre-natal and post-natal care to women, and who refuse to financially support pregnant women who are left in the lurch.  They are also the least concerned with small children being separated from their parents at the border (500 children have still not been reunited with their parents, and the damage done will be lifelong).

If Terryl were so concerned with abortion, why did he not consider any of these problems?

Howdy, my initial response to your comments is that on article on abortion is seldom, if ever, also an article on all things. The fact that Givens focuses on the topic is the reason you condemn his piece as lacking?  Just a kind of unwillingness to address the topic.

I don't see any comparison between having your own body chopped up and vacuumed out of a womb and having a circumcision. One is a minor pain that is dealt with for an extremely short period of time and the other literally attacks one's pain receptors on all levels. We can remove almost all pain of circumcision if we chose to use a mild anesthetic. However, we cannot anesthetize the pain of chopping one's body up. 

Is it murder? This makes me think of a very macabre "joke" - Two people go into an abortion clinic, but only one person comes out.  Is it murder? Of course it is murder and we all know it is. We don't need to answer when does the soul enter into the body or the much more silly question, when does life begin to answer the question. One person comes out. We have our answer. 

I think the Church accepts the possibility of an abortion in situations of rape, incest, or a mother's health without saying it is not murder. It seems to me the Church is seeking to choose between two horrible situations and allowing that a greater good or better, the least evil outcome to occur.  The Church does not favor abortion and it strongly encourages that the decision be taken prayerfully. 

I don't think the RC or our Church addresses the concept of a miscarriage being similar or equal to an abortion. One is a natural event and the other is the result of the choice of a third party. The child has no voice; it is the very weakest of our race and others are making decisions about its existence.

My friend, I am sorry, but I think you went off the deep end with the other statements you made and I don't know how you arrived at them. I accept the Church's stand on abortion - which results in almost all abortions being illegal - and I support health care for all, which includes prenatal and post natal care. I also go on out on the ledge too - if a man is fathering children left and right with multiple women and cannot or does not support them, society should remove his ability to father children. Society is not the kicking boy for those who are serial abusers it.  The same should go for a woman.

The issue of the children at the border has more to do with child trafficking than the separation of families.  I want to know how many parents remain in the children's home country and how many actually were the ones that brought them to the US.  Of course, I believe in borders. Nations have borders for a reason and just because foreigners want to enter country X does not entitle them to enter unless they do so legally. 

Religions do have moral teachings. Western Civilizations laws and morals are the product of moral teachings both pre and post Christianity.  However, Sharia is something a bit different. It is not just laws, but the apparatus that enforces those laws. I am confident you know the difference and could teach me more than I already know on the subject.

You could boil my position down to a desire that we as a society should not be so complacent about questions of life. This includes not just the life of a baby, but the life of our elderly.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If that is the case, then why should abortion be prohibited at all? I believe God forming man from the dust and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life is not the same as God forming a human being in a mother’s womb.

Why should it be? Are women just going out for abortions for their amusement? Is the only disincentive for abortion legal punishment?

Come on, ALL of you who seek a remedy through criminalization, open your eyes to what women who choose abortion are going through. Then, instead of trying to control them, help them.

40 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Howdy, my initial response to your comments is that on article on abortion is seldom, if ever, also an article on all things. The fact that Givens focuses on the topic is the reason you condemn his piece as lacking?  Just a kind of unwillingness to address the topic.

I don't see any comparison between having your own body chopped up and vacuumed out of a womb and having a circumcision. One is a minor pain that is dealt with for an extremely short period of time and the other literally attacks one's pain receptors on all levels. We can remove almost all pain of circumcision if we chose to use a mild anesthetic. However, we cannot anesthetize the pain of chopping one's body up. 

Is it murder? This makes me think of a very macabre "joke" - Two people go into an abortion clinic, but only one person comes out.  Is it murder? Of course it is murder and we all know it is. We don't need to answer when does the soul enter into the body or the much more silly question, when does life begin to answer the question. One person comes out. We have our answer. 

I think the Church accepts the possibility of an abortion in situations of rape, incest, or a mother's health without saying it is not murder. It seems to me the Church is seeking to choose between two horrible situations and allowing that a greater good or better, the least evil outcome to occur.  The Church does not favor abortion and it strongly encourages that the decision be taken prayerfully. 

I don't think the RC or our Church addresses the concept of a miscarriage being similar or equal to an abortion. One is a natural event and the other is the result of the choice of a third party. The child has no voice; it is the very weakest of our race and others are making decisions about its existence.

My friend, I am sorry, but I think you went off the deep end with the other statements you made and I don't know how you arrived at them. I accept the Church's stand on abortion - which results in almost all abortions being illegal - and I support health care for all, which includes prenatal and post natal care. I also go on out on the ledge too - if a man is fathering children left and right with multiple women and cannot or does not support them, society should remove his ability to father children. Society is not the kicking boy for those who are serial abusers it.  The same should go for a woman.

The issue of the children at the border has more to do with child trafficking than the separation of families.  I want to know how many parents remain in the children's home country and how many actually were the ones that brought them to the US.  Of course, I believe in borders. Nations have borders for a reason and just because foreigners want to enter country X does not entitle them to enter unless they do so legally. 

Religions do have moral teachings. Western Civilizations laws and morals are the product of moral teachings both pre and post Christianity.  However, Sharia is something a bit different. It is not just laws, but the apparatus that enforces those laws. I am confident you know the difference and could teach me more than I already know on the subject.

You could boil my position down to a desire that we as a society should not be so complacent about questions of life. This includes not just the life of a baby, but the life of our elderly.  

Abortion is literally not murder. Murder is, to put it simply, illegal killing. Your whole point is to define it as murder so that you can disincentivise it it by force. Once you make it illegal, then it might be considered murder. 

The situations of miscarriages do matter, and women who miscarry could be subject to anti-abortion laws if you increase prohibitions on abortions. How do you tell the difference between an unintentional miscarriage and an induced abortion? You might not be able to. 

A major problem here is the attempt to translate ideology into law. Your good intentions to spare human life do not make the criminalising law good at sparing human life. Good intentions can have disastrous consequences.

One way to spot dangerous good intentions is how they are focused. You are focusing on the legal status of the act, thereby focusing on forcing women to carry human life. In other words, you are treating women as vessels instead of human beings with their own bodies. The unborn is inside their bodies, and instead of looking at all the ways a woman may need support, you are focusing on control. It is strange to have these conversations with LDS people, since on an existential level Mormonism usually teaches that controlling the outcome is not the way to inspire righteousness. Focusing on control sounds much more like Satan's plan. And believers and non-believers alike need only to look at how life works to see the focus of controlling women fall apart. Helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies.

I repeat: helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies. If that is the case, then what do you care about more: making abortion illegal, or reducing abortions? Because it appears that you cannot have both. So please choose life over control.

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Why should it be? Are women just going out for abortions for their amusement? Is the only disincentive for abortion legal punishment?

Come on, ALL of you who seek a remedy through criminalization, open your eyes to what women who choose abortion are going through. Then, instead of trying to control them, help them.

Abortion is literally not murder. Murder is, to put it simply, illegal killing. Your whole point is to define it as murder so that you can disincentivise it it by force. Once you make it illegal, then it might be considered murder. 

The situations of miscarriages do matter, and women who miscarry could be subject to anti-abortion laws if you increase prohibitions on abortions. How do you tell the difference between an unintentional miscarriage and an induced abortion? You might not be able to. 

A major problem here is the attempt to translate ideology into law. Your good intentions to spare human life do not make the criminalising law good at sparing human life. Good intentions can have disastrous consequences.

One way to spot dangerous good intentions is how they are focused. You are focusing on the legal status of the act, thereby focusing on forcing women to carry human life. In other words, you are treating women as vessels instead of human beings with their own bodies. The unborn is inside their bodies, and instead of looking at all the ways a woman may need support, you are focusing on control. It is strange to have these conversations with LDS people, since on an existential level Mormonism usually teaches that controlling the outcome is not the way to inspire righteousness. Focusing on control sounds much more like Satan's plan. And believers and non-believers alike need only to look at how life works to see the focus of controlling women fall apart. Helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies.

I repeat: helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies. If that is the case, then what do you care about more: making abortion illegal, or reducing abortions? Because it appears that you cannot have both. So please choose life over control.

I tend to wretch when I read this type of feminist claptrap and double speak. 

You are correct, to define murder requires legally defining an act of killing to be illegal. Okay, calling it killing. Does that make it more palatable?  

Why do miscarriages matter? You are attempting to define what a law states and yet, there is not law by your own acknowledgement. I would think laws could be written that adequately address this supposed problem with miscarriage being different than an abortion.

All legal systems are based on ideologies. It is not a major problem to recognize such. Disastrous consequences for who?  

Laws necessarily focus on an act. The fact that we would have a law criminalizing abortions would not be novel or unique, but reflect the entire body of Law that we already have. 

No mam. Based on what I have stated regarding the difference between a legal abortion and an illegal one, there is no one that forces a woman to be a mother. All that is happening is that women and men would be forced to acknowledge the consequences of sexual intercourse. The decision to engage in a sexual relationship is completely within an individual's rights; however, their rights are narrowed once another life is involved. 

Focusing on control? Does the entire body of Laws that govern our nation taught from a perspective of control? We have laws to ensure a civil society not to "control" the citizenry. Teaching citizens to be thoughtful, mature adults that take responsibility for their actions ensures a civil society. I don't buy that silliness you described about agency. A woman's independence and agency ends where another life begins. How about women and men wake the heck up and take responsibility for their actions. If adults prove they are incapable of such, sterilize them. I have no problems with individuals that prove they do not want to be bothered by laws or the lives of others. Remove their ability (both individuals involved) to produce from that point forward each individual has much less to worry about when engaging in sexual relations. 

Create, teach, and strengthen mature adults and have a society that respects each other and life. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

1.  If the intent is to decrease the amount of abortions then believers need to be better at prayer.  Only god, if he is there, can stop or cause abortions that aren't elective...and in truth many abortions that are elective, hes at fault for too.   

The topic, though, is elective abortion.  And yes, men also have culpability for advocating or encouraging or participating in abortions.

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

2.  I would include in meadowchik's list from her last paragraph, education, and putting more onus on the man.  

I'm quite in favor of improved access to contraception (apart from abortifacients) and education.  But could you explain what you mean by "putting more onus on the man?"  Onus for what?  How would this happen?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

She has to have a doctor to perform it, though.

Yes.  But tubal ligation does not kill a baby in utero.

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Abortions are also much less common than common.

What does this mean?

Abortions in the U.S. hit their peak in the 1980s, ranging from 345-364 per 1,000 live births, and have been declining ever since (186 per 1,000 live births as of 2016).

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding murder, I am saying that women might seek abortions to seek safety.

Not sure what this means.

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If they are victims of domestic violence, then pregnancy might make them more vulnerable to domestic violence, as the murder statistic demonstrates, since those murders are by and large at the hands of their partners/spouses.

Do you have any evidence for how many abortions are performed based on fear of murder / domestic violence?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I tend to wretch when I read this type of feminist claptrap and double speak. 

You are correct, to define murder requires legally defining an act of killing to be illegal. Okay, calling it killing. Does that make it more palatable?  

Why do miscarriages matter? You are attempting to define what a law states and yet, there is not law by your own acknowledgement. I would think laws could be written that adequately address this supposed problem with miscarriage being different than an abortion.

All legal systems are based on ideologies. It is not a major problem to recognize such. Disastrous consequences for who?  

Laws necessarily focus on an act. The fact that we would have a law criminalizing abortions would not be novel or unique, but reflect the entire body of Law that we already have. 

No mam. Based on what I have stated regarding the difference between a legal abortion and an illegal one, there is no one that forces a woman to be a mother. All that is happening is that women and men would be forced to acknowledge the consequences of sexual intercourse. The decision to engage in a sexual relationship is completely within an individual's rights; however, their rights are narrowed once another life is involved. 

Focusing on control? Does the entire body of Laws that govern our nation taught from a perspective of control? We have laws to ensure a civil society not to "control" the citizenry. Teaching citizens to be thoughtful, mature adults that take responsibility for their actions ensures a civil society. I don't buy that silliness you described about agency. A woman's independence and agency ends where another life begins. How about women and men wake the heck up and take responsibility for their actions. If adults prove they are incapable of such, sterilize them. I have no problems with individuals that prove they do not want to be bothered by laws or the lives of others. Remove their ability (both individuals involved) to produce from that point forward each individual has much less to worry about when engaging in sexual relations. 

Create, teach, and strengthen mature adults and have a society that respects each other and life. 

I see. How about asking what women who choose abortion are going through? How about talking about how helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies? If you keep going back to criminalisation and to intercourse, without taking the human realities of the situations surrounding abortion and how they are remedied, I can only assume you don't really care about this issue. Show you care by understanding the issues.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I see. How about asking what women who choose abortion are going through? How about talking about how helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies? If you keep going back to criminalisation and to intercourse, without taking the human realities of the situations surrounding abortion and how they are remedied, I can only assume you don't really care about this issue. Show you care by understanding the issues.

Oh please. I disagree with you and so you belittle everything I stated in order for you to maintain that smugness of self-righteousness when you are standing on mountains of dead children. How about approach the topic from being a mature adult and dispose of that feminist agenda/talking points?  

We are supposed to talk about "human realities" while you completely disabuse the unborn? When did they stop being human?  How about taking the side of the individuals that cannot speak for themselves and are the very weakest among us?  Those that you so cavalierly ignore in your entire conversation about humanity should have a voice in the conversation. 

The Guttmacher Institute's studies show that of those women who ask for one abortion, 50% of them will seek another. This shows up to me as abortion for convenience and a complete, total regard for not being responsible for one's own actions. Either grow up or remove their ability to reproduce. If society did that, this discussion would be moot. 

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

Yes.  But tubal ligation does not kill a baby in utero.

What does this mean?

Abortions in the U.S. hit their peak in the 1980s, ranging from 345-364 per 1,000 live births, and have been declining ever since (186 per 1,000 live births as of 2016).

Not sure what this means.

Do you have any evidence for how many abortions are performed based on fear of murder / domestic violence?

Thanks,

-Smac

It might be more helpful for you to go back to my opening replies to your OP, and converse from there, instead of trying to follow each part of my response to Pogi.

To your last question, there are studies linking abortion and domestic violence situations:

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1576/toag.11.3.163.27500

Quote

Sexual assault, coercion, lack of power to negotiate sexual relations and inability to insist on intercourse‐related methods of contraception, such as condoms, have been well documented as violations of women's sexual and reproductive self‐determination. Because of their unique role, gynaecologists can create and develop services that address the impact of violence against women. Whereas pro‐choice and pro‐life lobbies may disagree about the moral status of the fetus (and thus the wrongs of abortion), there must be common ground that violence against pregnant women is intolerable. Some women are pressurised into unwanted abortions, yet others are protected by abortion from continuing with unwanted pregnancies and are enabled to escape violent relationships. Proposed liberalisation or restrictions of abortion law may particularly affect those women presenting late, in ambivalent or violent relationships or with little social support or financial resources. One of the reasons that healthcare organisations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists act to protect the legality of abortions performed at later gestations is to support victims of domestic violence who may present late. Knowing about and acting to diminish intimate partner violence is important, particularly in the context of avoiding repeat abortions. If we aim to help women by promoting their reproductive health, the debate on abortion needs to be calm and well informed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029784498000891

Quote

The prevalence of abuse reported by women in this population suggests that many women seeking abortion services may have abuse histories. Abused women may have different reasons for pregnancy termination than nonabused women and may be more likely to make the abortion decision without partner involvement. When routine screening for abuse is included in abortion counseling, health providers have the opportunity for developing a safety plan and initiating appropriate referral.

In other words, women who are victims of domestic violence may be more prone to unwanted pregnancies, may feel less able to protect themselves when pregnant, and some may be pressured into abortions. How to address it all goes back to my earlier statement to others: helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh please. I disagree with you and so you belittle everything I stated in order for you to maintain that smugness of self-righteousness when you are standing on mountains of dead children.

No, you did not just disagree:

42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I tend to wretch when I read this type of feminist claptrap and double speak. 

 

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The Guttmacher Institute's studies show that of those women who ask for one abortion, 50% of them will seek another. This shows up to me as abortion for convenience and a complete, total regard for not being responsible for one's own actions. Either grow up or remove their ability to reproduce. If society did that, this discussion would be moot. 

Again, you really need to learn more about the issues surrounding situations where women seek abortions. Some women DO NOT HAVE autonomy and safety and in their situations, an abortion is directly tied to their personal safety. Look at the studies I posted above for SMAC.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It might be more helpful for you to go back to my opening replies to your OP, and converse from there, instead of trying to follow each part of my response to Pogi.

To your last question, there are studies linking abortion and domestic violence situations:

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1576/toag.11.3.163.27500

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029784498000891

Thank you, I will give these a read.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In other words, women who are victims of domestic violence may be more prone to unwanted pregnancies, may feel less able to protect themselves when pregnant, and some may be pressured into abortions.

Terrible situations all.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How to address it all goes back to my earlier statement to others: helping women have more agency is what tends to decrease abortions and improve the outcomes for their babies.

I'm not sure there is an either/or situation here.  

The vast majority of abortions are, as then-Eler Nelson put it, based on “reasons of convenience.”  I am opposed to both forced and elective abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

She has to have a doctor to perform it, though. Abortions are also much less common than common.

I am hinting at someone else.   One is failing to consider all individuals involved when they say abortion is safer than live birth.   That is why I asked "for whom?"  It is not safer for everyone.  It is a death sentence, in fact, for at least one.  When you consider all involved, abortion is not safer compared to a live birth.

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

These are real-life obstacles which stand in the way of reducing abortions. Help women be safer and you will help reduce abortions.

The same is true for theft.  Help hungry and struggling families/individuals and you will help reduce theft.  Of course we should help the less fortunate and serve in every way possible to uplift the burdens of another so they don't feel compelled to steal to feed a drug habit or feed their family.  But in no way should we make theft legal simply because helping those struggling is a more effective measure.  We can do both, and should do both.  

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why should it be? Are women just going out for abortions for their amusement? Is the only disincentive for abortion legal punishment?

Come on, ALL of you who seek a remedy through criminalization, open your eyes to what women who choose abortion are going through. Then, instead of trying to control them, help them.

I’m well aware of what women who choose abortion go through. In some instances it may be the result of an awful situation. In others it may be mostly a matter of convenience.  I am also aware of what the person being aborted goes through. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh please. I disagree with you and so you belittle everything I stated in order for you to maintain that smugness of self-righteousness when you are standing on mountains of dead children.

Let's please avoid this type of rhetoric.  This is a difficult topic to address.

30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The Guttmacher Institute's studies show that of those women who ask for one abortion, 50% of them will seek another. This shows up to me as abortion for convenience and a complete, total regard for not being responsible for one's own actions. Either grow up or remove their ability to reproduce. If society did that, this discussion would be moot. 

There are serious arguments to be made regarding bodily autonomy.  The idea of the government forcefully sterilizing women (and, presumably, men) is a scare one.

I think we can make a lot of headway through persuasion, education, emphasis on sexual ethics, availability of contraceptives, and so on.  Legislation is more difficult, but must also be attempted.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m well aware of what women who choose abortion go through. In some instances it may be the result of an awful situation. In others it may be mostly a matter of convenience.  I am also aware of what the person being aborted goes through. 

The personhood of the baby, the impact of abortion on her, often gets short shrift in these discussions, when it should be at the forefront.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

It seems like you do in the first paragraph above the same think for which you are criticizing Terryl in the second.

*** for tat?  The argument is tu quoque.  Instead of allowing his case to be based on sound reasoning, he makes an ad hominem argument.  That act alone brings his argument into disrepute, if not childish.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Abortion is a very sensitive topic to address.  I found Terryl's piece to be both thoughtful and analytical.

I suspect because the topic of his article is not circumcision.

Again, animal pain is not the topic of his piece.

He makes an argument from pain, which either is or is not a legitimate argument.  If fetal pain is a problem to be avoided, then let us give weight to the full implications, instead of hemming and hawwing.  If elective abortion is wrong because it causes pain, then is not pain to any living thing wrong?  Or are the animal rights people wrong, and it is only a human thing?  You seem to reject reasoning based on "anything like unto it" of D&C 59:6, which you yourself cited.

One of the major arguments against circumcision is the pain it causes to newborns.  Yet it is a commandment of God under the Abrahamic covenant.  Moreover, pain is a strong element of the Law of Opposites.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

So far you are criticizing him not for what he said, but for what he did not say.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fetal death."  Are you speaking of elective abortions only?  Or all instances where a baby dies in utero?

D&C 59:6 states: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I think elective abortion falls into the "anything like unto it" category.

Is reasoning by analogy off-limits?  You are using it here, Spencer.  Spontaneous abortion is a normal bodily function in a woman who is pregnant -- the body making decisions at the cellular level on the fitness of a fertilized ovum to be brought to term.  It often takes place so early that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant.  What is the actual status of that fertilized ovum in such cases, which may only last hours?  Is ensoulment irrelevant, and at what stage?

What does loving our neighbor really mean?  What are the full implications?  D&C 59:6 seems to acknowledge that it means much more than only aborting fetuses.  I raised a number of issues which actually impinge on that professed love, and you rejected them out of hand.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

The Church's (very) limited exceptions seem to be based and centered on A) agency (rape and incest) and B) a dilemma (the life of the mother is in jeopardy).

Consider these statements by then-Elder Rusell M. Nelson in 1985:

I am persuaded by these words.

See then-Elder Nelson's remarks above ("It is not a question of when 'meaningful life' begins or when the spirit 'quickens' the body...").

Further, D&C 84:27 states that John was "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb."  This seems to be a reference to Luke 1:41 ("And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost") and 44 ("For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy").  So when "ensoulment" occurs isn't really clear from the Scriptures.  But I don't think ensoulment is determinative.

What about them?

Those are good arguments, Spencer, but not the only ones.  In a secular state uniting a diverse population under a secular Constitution, we might want to consider a very broad set of circumstances and opinions, not merely one narrow ideological approach.  The electorate presumably has the right to decide such issues through its legally selected representatives.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the Church to which Terry belongs does not.

The subject is elective abortion, a subject over which Roman Catholicism has far more power than does the LDS Church.  Particularly in a polity where 7 justices of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic (when Justice Barrett begins her term).  The subject under discussion here is elective abortion, not Terryl Givens.  The Roman Catholic Church says that elective abortion is murder, while Elder Nelson specifically says that it is not.  That difference is stark.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The topic here, though, is the article by Terryl Givens.

Again, the topic here is the article by Terryl Givens.  

Terryl's article is not about children being separated from their parents at the border.

The topic of his article was elective abortion.  Not circumcision, nor animal pain, nor spontaneous abortions and stillbirths, not the policies of the Roman Catholic Church, or opponents of socialized medicine in the United States, or children taken illegally across the United States' southern border.

I think Terry's piece is quite good.  It presents both data and sound reasoning, both of which you have ignored in favor of a litany of tangents and complaints about what Terryl did not say about topics either marginally connected, or not connected at all, to the topic of elective abortion.....................

You seem unable to decide, Spencer, whether the topic is Terryl's article, or the topic is elective abortion.  Terryl and I were addressing elective abortion, a topic which is not limited merely to one article on the matter.  Attorneys arguing cases before the bar of the Supreme Court are frequently asked questions about the full implications of a decision one way or the other.  Is there a sage reason for that?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...