Elder andersen on abortion

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My parents wanted twelve, but for the mental health of them both, had to stop at 8. We may see these stories locally, I heard them and witnessed them firsthand, but that is not the same as what is taught from the General Conference pulpit. In a church with a belief in continuing revelation and a living prophet and apostles, nothing is. In my family, because my parents were overwhelmed, church became all the more influential, too. Even though I went to public school and had non-member friends, it all revolved around the church and church revolved around the prophetic teachings. 

And so I did as Elder Anderson suggested for many years, going forward in faith and bearing many children. And I almost lost my life three times, and we almost lost a child because of it.

This was never my problem or my experience. Which I’ve always been grateful for. It was easy for me to both enjoy my church and church activity life and enjoy my school friends who were always different faiths from me. My childhood memories are a consistent mix of both. And I know I mentioned this before, but I’m generally anti authority. Telling me to do something solely on the merit of religious authority doesn’t work for me at all.
 

But I’ve seen this similar concern in others...both friends and clients. And it concerns me. I know people who’ve truly received their own revelation to have more kids even though it was wreaking havoc on their bodies or wasn’t what they were planning and I can respect that choice. I know personally that God can ask hard things of us. But when they feel nudged moreso from assuming the need to do so, that’s when I get concerned. 
 

i don’t fully put this on the structural church’s back. The ones that I’ve seen struggle with this the most both had family and personality traits that made them gravitate toward rarely/never questioning authority figures/culture or having tendencies to black and white thinking. But I think the church can help this by leaning even slightly into the more complex and less expected stories of faith on this matter.
 

Edited April 9, 2021 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

On 4/7/2021 at 5:26 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I ultimately find all theodicies lacking in one way or another, so the problem of evil is a bit of a mystery to me. So I suppose that God will have to answer for evil, but I imagine His answer will be a perfect one.

I know you like to have a sarcastic flippant tone, and you usually make me laugh, but characterizing my position as telling a rape victim to "suck it up, wimp" is wrong.

Or perhaps the problem of evil is a compelling argument that there may be no God.  Or not a God as the way Christianity imagines God.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or perhaps the problem of evil is a compelling argument that there may be no God.  Or not a God as the way Christianity imagines God.

Or deism.

 

Quote

deism

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.Compare with theism.

To me, deism makes more sense than a God who intervenes sometimes to help someone find his keys but allows for child trafficking etc.

Besides, if life really is a test, why would God (the teacher) help answer some kids questions during that test but not others?

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or perhaps the problem of evil is a compelling argument that there may be no God.  Or not a God as the way Christianity imagines God.

It certainly has been difficult for many believers. It doesn't affect my faith, though. Perhaps it's because my journey to Christianity took me through psychedelic spirituality and Buddhism, with a focus on non-dualism. Or perhaps some other reason.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Besides, if life really is a test, why would God (the teacher) help answer some kids questions during that test but not others?

Because the test doesn’t end at death, everyone gets their questions answered eventually...

And probably some gain greater benefit from having to find their own answers or working at them for quite some time before receiving the answer.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Terminating a pregnancy does not negate personhood.

Are you sure?  In what other contexts does Person A have the legal right to kill Person B for any reason or no reason whatsoever?

I can think of one: slavery.  And that was because slaves were seen as chattel property, and not as persons.

Quote

Castle doctrine, self-defense, conscripting and sending soldiers off to war does not negate their personhood either.

First, I appreciate your thoughts here.  This is a tough topic.

Second, by invoking the Castle doctrine you are analogizing an in utero baby to a home invader against whom deadly force may be used.  Correct?  Could you elaborate on this?  The doctrine applies in different ways depending on the jurisdiction, but here are the typical main components:

Quote

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
• The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force. In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.

As regarding the first bullet point, an individual may be able to kill an "intruder" who is making or has made an unlawful/forcible entry into the residence/business/vehicle.  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?  That seems rather tough to do, since the baby didn't put itself in the womb.  In the vast majority of instances, the mother voluntarily participated in the act that created the child.  

As regarding the second bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if the "intruder" is "acting unlawfully."  Again, how would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?

As regarding the third bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if the "intruder" has malevolent intent - to "inflict serious bodily harm or death" upon the individual.  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?

As regarding the fourth bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if she has not "provoked or instigated an intrustion" or "threat or use of deadly force."  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?  This one seems to go very much against your position, as in almost all instances the mother has "provoked or instigated" the pregnancy by voluntarily participating in the act - coitus - that can lead to it. 

Third, I would like to better understand your reference to "self-defense."  In what way can an in utero baby create a threat to the mother, such that killing the baby can be reasonably compared to killing, say, an armed home invader?

Fourth, in your first two examples (Castle doctrine and self-defense) you analogize the right of Person A to kill Person B.  In those analogies, however, Person B is a bad actor, and Person A is a victim or potential victim.  How is this relationship between Person A and Person B comparable to the relationship between a mother and her in utero baby?

Fifth, I don't understand your "sending soldiers off to war" reference.  Could you elaborate?

Quote

In answer to your question regarding gender selection, I believe a woman has the right to not continue a pregnancy for any reason. It's not our business why.

Okay.

When does this "right" end?  At what point does personhood attach to the child?

Quote

Quote

And when balancing the competing interests (the right to life of the unborn child v. the right to bodily autonomy of the mother), should the latter prevail?  If so, what are the parameters?  What are the limiting principles?  If the answer is "bodily autonomy," then when does that right become superseded by the right of the unborn child to live?  And why does that supercession take place?  What event causes it?

In answer to your question about limiting principle, I would say that not continuing a pregnancy does not always have to necessarily involve killing the unborn. 

Could you elaborate?  A baby is either aborted, or is miscarried, or is delivered.  What other options are there?

Quote

That said, I think that there is a prevalent myth that there are women wanting to abort full-term babies.

A fair point.  Per this article: "Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US."

However, the point here is not that late-term abortions are common, but that there does not seem to be a material distinction between electively aborting a full-term baby and a not-yet-full-term baby.

Quote

There are cases when women elect to induce delivery when they know that the unborn has such physical problems that they have no nonneglible chance at survival even full term, but those are still classified as abortions.

These would likely fall within the parameters of the "hard cases" I referenced earlier. 

The vast majority of abortions are elective, and do not pertain to the viability of the child or the health of the mother (or rape or incest).

Quote

Women should be allowed to make that choice, which is often done not only to reduce their own misery but also to reduce the suffering of their child.

The Church's policy seems to acknowledge that.  Do you concur?

Quote

I kinda look it it like this: whoever lives inside a woman's body is not under the jurisdiction of the state.

This seems kind of conclusory.  

And it doesn't account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allows for "the jurisdiction of the state" to govern (that is to say, restrict) abortion of a baby "inside a woman's body."

And it also doesn't account for laws which generally do affect a person's body.  Mandatory vaccines come to mind.  Do you likewise oppose these laws?

Also, what are your thoughts about a pregnant woman's "right" to drink during pregnancy?  Use drugs?  Share dirty needles?  

Also, what are your thoughts about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to this law?

Also, what are your thoughts about laws that exist in 38 states that "recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 23 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development?"  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to these laws?

Quote

They are under her jurisdiction, her laws, her own sense of morality.

Well, no.  Not completely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

20 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Oh one other story concern was the use of the story of the woman who felt God tell her to have more kids.

That happened to my wife (though she felt prompted about having one more child, which we did).

20 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It's another very common story when talking about family planning in the church which gently ignores stories that go against the idea of having several kids.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Are you suggesting that the Lord does not prompt people regarding whether to have more children (or to stop)?  

20 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I have yet to hear a talk where the couple assumed they'd have 8 kids, she realized she has really dangerous pregnancies and after prayer  and pondering, they stop at two.

Perhaps that could help.  I think we seldom (ever?) hear of families being criticized in society (or in or by the Church) for having too few children.

I have a family member who, with her husband, "stop{ped} at two" for the reasons you reference here.  I and my wife could theoretically had more children, but we took her health into account and decided to stop.  

20 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The over arching principle is still the same (the couple in their own circumstances plans their family with the help of God). But the outcomes are very different. When only one outcome is highlighted all the time, people are more likely to assume that the only right answer will entail more not less children.

That assumption does not seem borne out by the teachings of the Church:

Quote

Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.
...
Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

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

Societal pressures seem to almost totally militate against fewer children, not more.  In that context, then, the counsel to have children becomes a bit more understandable.

Nevertheless, your comment about assumptions merits some attention.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think we seldom (ever?) hear of families being criticized in society (or in or by the Church) for having too few children.

Getting questions at church about when I was going to have another kid after my first were quite common.  Not so much after the second, but I was tenish years older.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Getting questions at church about when I was going to have another kid after my first were quite common.  Not so much after the second, but I was tenish years older.

Is this sort of thing still happening now?  And who is it that asked / is asking this sort of question?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

That begs the question though.

The question is about when personhood begins, because that's when the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution vests.

 

No that was not the question. I already conceded the personhood of the unborn. You can find my earlier comments and see for yourself.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This was never my problem or my experience. Which I’ve always been grateful for. It was easy for me to both enjoy my church and church activity life and enjoy my school friends who were always different faiths from me. My childhood memories are a consistent mix of both. And I know I mentioned this before, but I’m generally anti authority. Telling me to do something solely on the merit of religious authority doesn’t work for me at all.
 

But I’ve seen this similar concern in others...both friends and clients. And it concerns me. I know people who’ve truly received their own revelation to have more kids even though it was wreaking havoc on their bodies or wasn’t what they were planning and I can respect that choice. I know personally that God can ask hard things of us. But when they feel nudged moreso from assuming the need to do so, that’s when I get concerned. 
 

i don’t fully put this on the structural church’s back. The ones that I’ve seen struggle with this the most both had family and personality traits that made them gravitate toward rarely/never questioning authority figures/culture or having tendencies to black and white thinking. But I think the church can help this by leaning even slightly into the more complex and less expected stories of faith on this matter.
 

I was always ready to challenge authority very easily, except when it came to perceived doctrine. 

[smac97]

The Trib has an interesting letter-to-the-editor about this topic (written by a member of the Church, who is also a physician) :

Quote

During the April 3 session of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Easter General Conference, Elder Neil L. Anderson spoke bluntly of the evils of abortion in our society, advocating for members to rally against its prevalence. He praised the mother who chose adoption over abortion and lauded the choices of those who desired more children, despite facing consequences of a “high risk” pregnancy.

As an ob-gyn physician and member of the LDS Church, I listened in stunned silence at his words, contemplating the irony of their juxtaposition to Elder Dale G. Renlund’s admonition, just minutes before, to not only abstain from casting stones, but be “stone catchers” when interacting with the metaphorical “women caught in adultery” in our society.

I don't see any irony.  Or juxtaposition.  Nothing said by Elder Anderson endorsed casting stones, nor did anything he say conflict with Elder Renlund's remarks.

Quote

I therefore write this as a plea for clarification in how we are to view women who find themselves caught in the highly politicized and agonizingly complex decision to have an abortion.

Well, one clarification could be to not falsely juxtapose Elder Andersen's remarks with Elder Renlund's.

Quote

I am not an abortion provider, but I have seen many abortions. In fact, the first abortion I witnessed was one of the most profoundly spiritual experiences of my life. She was a 14-year-old girl from a poor neighborhood in Queens who found herself pregnant, scared and alone. While I was holding her hand, anti-abortion rhetoric played in my mind but was powerfully silenced by an overwhelming feeling of love and compassion that I felt came straight from God. She was important and God knew why she chose what she did.

Ah.  So the choice is either "anti-abortion rhetoric" or "overwhelming feeling of love and compassion that I felt came straight from God."

Speaking of "highly politicized..."

In any event, she raises a fair point about the "hard cases" I've been noting in this thread.  

Quote

Since then, I have been very sensitive to the rhetoric of “othering,” using language and stories that set us apart from the rest of God’s children by labeling ourselves as “the faithful.”

Elder Andersen did not do this.  She is bearing false witness here.

Quote

It seems based on a gospel of prosperity where we conflate our social privilege with blessings stemming from our personal righteousness.

Oi.  If characterizing opposition to elective abortion as "social privilege" isn't "highly politicized" commentary, nothing is.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who oppose abortion and who are not fairly characterized as being "social{ly} privilege{d}."

Quote

It was not until I was forced to regularly associate with members of “the world” — the pregnant mother using heroin, the college student who was sexually assaulted while intoxicated and the transgender man needing a pap smear — that I realized just how much I yearned to be seen as part of this human community, not above it.

More false witness.  Elder Andersen said nothing about being "above" the "human community."  

Characterizing opposition to elective abortion as she does here is absurd.

Quote

Because here was love and forgiveness, even if it was messy. Here were clear manifestations of the atonement of Christ in action. Here was clear evidence of our need for a Savior to bring about justice — social justice — and provide healing to a world marred by generations of abuse and systemic discrimination.

"Social justice" = "highly politicized..."

And what does this have to do with Elder Andersen's talk?  

Quote

I was also concerned when Anderson praised women who opt to pursue high-risk pregnancies. I agree that the decision to have a child is highly personal.  However, when rhetoric such as this is directed toward a community where motherhood is believed to be a woman’s highest calling and where women are socialized to believe their value is directly proportional to their propensity for sacrifice, it is hard not to see his message as subtly coercive, where a mother’s decision to risk physical or emotional health is portrayed a spiritual necessity rather than personalized choice.

I don't understand what she is saying here.  Whether to abort a child is an important decision, such that it can and should be both a "spiritual" and "personal" one.

Quote

As an ob-gyn, church seems the natural place to process my experiences and growing dissonance.  I yearn for a community where I can share stories – real, sometimes controversial stories.

Church meetings are intended to build faith and strengthen the community, not to voice personal grievances, concerns, "dissonance," etc.

Quote

Instead, all too often I find a community that vilifies the experiences and people that have become most sacred to me – my patients.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of either the Saints or Elder Andersen.

Quote

And so, I ask, please explain how we as Christians are to view these “women caught in abortion.”

Um, I doubt you'll find an answer by writing a highly-slanted critique of the Church's position on abortion in the Salt Lake Tribune.

And the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it?  

Quote

Do they merit our efforts to catch stones? Or are we, the faithful, obligated to continue casting them?

More false witness.  It is a false dilemma to say that we must either A) fully support any and all elective abortions, or B) be guilty of "casting stones."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 9, 2021 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  In what other contexts does Person A have the legal right to kill Person B for any reason or no reason whatsoever?

I can think of one: slavery.  And that was because slaves were seen as chattel property, and not as persons.

First, I appreciate your thoughts here.  This is a tough topic.

Second, by invoking the Castle doctrine you are analogizing an in utero baby to a home invader against whom deadly force may be used.  Correct?  Could you elaborate on this?  The doctrine applies in different ways depending on the jurisdiction, but here are the typical main components:

As regarding the first bullet point, an individual may be able to kill an "intruder" who is making or has made an unlawful/forcible entry into the residence/business/vehicle.  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?  That seems rather tough to do, since the baby didn't put itself in the womb.  In the vast majority of instances, the mother voluntarily participated in the act that created the child.  

As regarding the second bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if the "intruder" is "acting unlawfully."  Again, how would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?

As regarding the third bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if the "intruder" has malevolent intent - to "inflict serious bodily harm or death" upon the individual.  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?

As regarding the fourth bullet point, an individual can only use deadly force if she has not "provoked or instigated an intrustion" or "threat or use of deadly force."  How would you analogize this component to an in utero baby?  This one seems to go very much against your position, as in almost all instances the mother has "provoked or instigated" the pregnancy by voluntarily participating in the act - coitus - that can lead to it. 

Third, I would like to better understand your reference to "self-defense."  In what way can an in utero baby create a threat to the mother, such that killing the baby can be reasonably compared to killing, say, an armed home invader?

Fourth, in your first two examples (Castle doctrine and self-defense) you analogize the right of Person A to kill Person B.  In those analogies, however, Person B is a bad actor, and Person A is a victim or potential victim.  How is this relationship between Person A and Person B comparable to the relationship between a mother and her in utero baby?

Fifth, I don't understand your "sending soldiers off to war" reference.  Could you elaborate?

Okay.

When does this "right" end?  At what point does personhood attach to the child?

Could you elaborate?  A baby is either aborted, or is miscarried, or is delivered.  What other options are there?

A fair point.  Per this article: "Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US."

However, the point here is not that late-term abortions are common, but that there does not seem to be a material distinction between electively aborting a full-term baby and a not-yet-full-term baby.

These would likely fall within the parameters of the "hard cases" I referenced earlier. 

The vast majority of abortions are elective, and do not pertain to the viability of the child or the health of the mother (or rape or incest).

The Church's policy seems to acknowledge that.  Do you concur?

This seems kind of conclusory.  

And it doesn't account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allows for "the jurisdiction of the state" to govern (that is to say, restrict) abortion of a baby "inside a woman's body."

And it also doesn't account for laws which generally do affect a person's body.  Mandatory vaccines come to mind.  Do you likewise oppose these laws?

Also, what are your thoughts about a pregnant woman's "right" to drink during pregnancy?  Use drugs?  Share dirty needles?  

Also, what are your thoughts about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to this law?

Also, what are your thoughts about laws that exist in 38 states that "recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 23 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development?"  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to these laws?

Well, no.  Not completely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Those were examples of people being killed or sent to very probable deaths without any negation of their personhood.

The issue here is that in pregnancy, one person lives inside another person's body. So to use a fictional example, if people could shrink and enter inside another person via The Magic School Bus, that person has the right to expel them regardless of consequence to those shrunken people.

A person is either born or aborted. Abortion is either spontaneous or induced. Technically speaking, any induced delivery which knowingly will result in imminent death of the baby is considered an abortion (at least in some states.) So a mother who is miserable in a pregnancy with a baby likely experiencing pain who is likely to die, might elect to induce birth to relieve her and her baby's suffering, but still be considered as having a "late-term abortion." I concur that the church policy seems to potentially allow for such cases. My point was to elucidate the reality of what late term abortion can be about.

Vaccines are imo a matter of public health not requiring the habitation of one human being inside another human being.

Drinking can have horrible consequences pregnant or not, but imo we are better to address them both with good access to medical care and education.

Being in charge of one's body when pregnant does not give others license to harm the life inside her against her consent. People should not be forced to keep their pregnancy and they should not be forced to terminate their pregnancy.

I think it's entirely possible that some court cases have gotten some things wrong.

Thanks!

Edited April 9, 2021 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Those were examples of people being killed or sent to very probable deaths without any negation of their personhood.

But they aren't examples of Person A having the legal right to kill Person B for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The issue here is that in pregnancy, one person lives inside another person's body.

Yes.  Two persons.  That is my general argument.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So to use a fictional example, if people could shrink and enter inside another person via The Magic School Bus, that person has the right to expel them regardless of consequence to those shrunken people.

Even if the larger person invited the Magic School Bus to take up residence in her body?

Even if "expel{ling}" the Magic School Bus means killing its occupants?

Even if the occupants of the Magic School Bus have done nothing wrong?

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Vaccines are imo a matter of public health not requiring the habitation of one human being inside another human being.

The volitional killing of Person B by Person A is not a "matter of public health?"  Ever?

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Drinking can have horrible consequences pregnant or not, but imo we are better to address them both with good access to medical care and education.

Sure.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Being in charge of one's body when pregnant does not give others license to harm the life inside her against her consent.

Why is that?  Does the mother "own" the "life insider her?"  Is the "life inside her" chattel or a person?

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

People should not be forced to keep their pregnancy and they should not be forced to terminate their pregnancy.

That's pretty conclusory.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But they aren't examples of Person A having the legal right to kill Person B for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

Yes.  Two persons.  That is my general argument.

Even if the larger person invited the Magic School Bus to take up residence in her body?

Even if "expel{ling}" the Magic School Bus means killing its occupants?

Even if the occupants of the Magic School Bus have done nothing wrong?

The volitional killing of Person B by Person A is not a "matter of public health?"  Ever?

Sure.

Why is that?  Does the mother "own" the "life insider her?"  Is the "life inside her" chattel or a person?

That's pretty conclusory.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure they aren't, but neither are they instances of one person living inside another person.

Yes, even if they are invited, she has the right to revoke the invitation.

The volitional  termination of her pregnancy is a matter of public health. The public has a responsibility to the general welfare but no jurisdiction to force a person to allow another person to continue living inside them.

The unborn are not chattel but neither are women, therefore womens' wombs are not the public's domain.

Yes it is conclusory. You did ask for my views. We have to start somewhere, imo, rather than relying on incomplete comparisons to adjudicate the government's role in this. It must be direct and I think that conceding personhood of women and the unborn is required: If a woman is a person, then government must not force her to carry another person in her body.

[california boy]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's not that simple. And the fact that you think it is that simple, that you reduce the whole controversial issue to a solution that is completely on your side of the issue, and then call it simple, means you have little or no understanding of the pro-life side. It's unfortunate that you are unwilling to try to understand us, and instead dismiss us so easily out-of-hand.

I don't need to continue this conversation further, so I'll let you have the last word, if you want it.

 

With all due respect, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, no on knows when a sprit enters a fetus.  Nor have you offered any proof.  I certainly respect anyone's right to have a personal opinion on that issue.  If you have a personally held religious beliefs when that happens, then I totally respect your ability to hold that belief.  I would never force you to abandon that principle.  I only allow others that same right.  What choices others make does not in any way require you to change your beliefs.  Nor should your beliefs require someone else to change their beliefs.  

I think I have been quite understanding about you being able to hold on to your personal beliefs on when a spirit  enters a fetus.  To give you back your words, it is unfortunate that you are unwilling to try to understand those that hold a different belief.  

I generally don't get into issues on abortion, because rarely are they productive.  But I was interested to try and understand how you rectify what to me are conflicting stances.  

I do agree with you.  When the discussion breaks down to "you have little or no understanding of the pro-life side". then it probably is time to end the conversation.

Edited April 10, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure they aren't, but neither are they instances of one person living inside another person.

Yes, even if they are invited, she has the right to revoke the invitation.

Even if such revocation amounts to killing the invitees?

And how do you account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The volitional  termination of her pregnancy is a matter of public health.

So is the life of the child.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The public has a responsibility to the general welfare but no jurisdiction to force a person to allow another person to continue living inside them.

Are you sure?  Have you read Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

As I see it, virtually every jurisdiction in the U.S. "force{s} a person to allow another person to continue living inside them" to some extent.  From the Guttmacher Institute:

Quote

• Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy.

• “Partial-Birth” Abortion: 21 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 3 of these laws apply only to postviability abortions.
• ...
• Parental Involvement: 37 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.  27 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 10 require that one or both parents be notified.

Thoughts?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The unborn are not chattel but neither are women, therefore womens' wombs are not the public's domain.

How do you account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes it is conclusory. You did ask for my views. We have to start somewhere, imo, rather than relying on incomplete comparisons to adjudicate the government's role in this. It must be direct and I think that conceding personhood of women and the unborn is required: If a woman is a person, then government must not force her to carry another person in her body.

Again, how do you reconcile this absolutist statement ("government must not force her to carry another person in her body") with Casey?

Are you opposed to any governement constraints on abortion?

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was always ready to challenge authority very easily, except when it came to perceived doctrine. 

Not even that stopped me. Sometimes I was pretty blunt about it. I remember an exchange as a missionary. I didn’t like kneeling in prayer and the missionary I was on exchange with commented on it and challenged me to do so. I said no. She gave me scripture about jesus kneeling in prayer. I said Jesus also prayed on the cross and I’m not about to pray like that either. 

To be fair after that, I kinda felt the spirit withdraw and I promised instead that I would study it out for myself because I couldn’t appropriately do it just because she believed it and most everyone believed it. I did, it developed meaning...and after sometimes I pray like that with that meaning and intent in mind. I still mostly pray however. 
 

So perceived doctrine or not it’s rare that I’ll stick with it if I don’t believe it for myself to some degree. 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Not even that stopped me. Sometimes I was pretty blunt about it. I remember an exchange as a missionary. I didn’t like kneeling in prayer and the missionary I was on exchange with commented on it and challenged me to do so. I said no. She gave me scripture about jesus kneeling in prayer. I said Jesus also prayed on the cross and I’m not about to pray like that either. 

To be fair after that, I kinda felt the spirit withdraw and I promised instead that I would study it out for myself because I couldn’t appropriately do it just because she believed it and most everyone believed it. I did, it developed meaning...and after sometimes I pray like that with that meaning and intent in mind. I still mostly pray however. 
 

So perceived doctrine or not it’s rare that I’ll stick with it if I don’t believe it for myself to some degree. 

I was more independent about the more extraneous stuff. As a teen, I decided not to continue pursuing my YW Personal Progress. I told my Laurel's leader that I just was not drawn to doing those assignments for a necklace. 

And more to the point, in Mormonism child-bearing is central to female identity. It is so much so, that even if we cannot bear children in this life for whatever reason, we can hope to do so in the eternities. 

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

And how do you account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

So is the life of the child.

Are you sure?  Have you read Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

As I see it, virtually every jurisdiction in the U.S. "force{s} a person to allow another person to continue living inside them" to some extent.  From the Guttmacher Institute:

Thoughts?

How do you account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

Again, how do you reconcile this absolutist statement ("government must not force her to carry another person in her body") with Casey?

Are you opposed to any governement constraints on abortion?

Thanks,

-Smac

Like I said, I think that court decisions that support the enforcement of the continuation of a pregnancy are wrong. I think there is a very large gap in legal theory when it comes to this, but I am also not surprised at it, given the fact that women's rights as people are relatively new. 

Consider all the examples you might use and others--myself included--might use, to try to find a legally analogous question to pregnancy and abortion. Consider how none of them completely compare and consider that induced abortion has been around since ancient times. How do you reconcile the very long history of castle doctrine legal theory, and self defense legal history, with the very meager legal history and relatively meager legal development of abortion law theory?

It should have its own theory.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Even if such revocation amounts to killing the invitees?

Perhaps, if they don't promptly leave on their own. And especially if one has a reason to believe they are endangered by their continued presence.

Also, to be clear about this still incomplete comparison, having consensual sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy.

[BlueDreams]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:02 AM, smac97 said:

That happened to my wife (though she felt prompted about having one more child, which we did).

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Are you suggesting that the Lord does not prompt people regarding whether to have more children (or to stop)?  

No. I’m saying the stories of God prompting people on children almost entirely focus on people having more. There isn’t as many stories shared from especially larger events like GC of people being told they need to have less than they planned. 

Quote

Perhaps that could help.  I think we seldom (ever?) hear of families being criticized in society (or in or by the Church) for having too few children.

I have a family member who, with her husband, "stop{ped} at two" for the reasons you reference here.  I and my wife could theoretically had more children, but we took her health into account and decided to stop.  
 

It depends your cultural context. There is the larger society and then there is your smaller community and family culture that form your view of an ideal family size. So for example, I come from a long line of baby makers. We reproduce. My great g-ma had 9, my grandma had 13 + a step, my mom had seven. All but 1 of my aunts and uncles have 4+ children. And that’s in part because she’s unmarried. I grew up having huge family reunions and currently have 60+ cousins. This deeply effected my sense of ideal family size. To me anything with less than 3 kids felt like a starter family. 3 was a small family. 4 was the last step before you enter big family sizes. This was in spite of largely growing up in areas where the average family was more likely 2 or 3. My Church friends almost always had families of 3+. I knew outside the church families could be smaller but the communities I learned most about what it means to be a family was not mainly from there. 
 

Quote

That assumption does not seem borne out by the teachings of the Church:

Quote

Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

...

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

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

 

You emphasized one part, but again a person who’s cultural and community reference points are more pro-big families and struggles with doing otherwise will read the parts I emphasized differently. How they define selfish may differ and would how they view the “basic necessities” to raise a child. And they may place more spiritual and quasi-science emphasis on the consequences of their decisions. Giving stories of faithful Saints making various decisions on family planning would help counter these assumptions. 
 

with luv, 

BD

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was more independent about the more extraneous stuff. As a teen, I decided not to continue pursuing my YW Personal Progress. I told my Laurel's leader that I just was not drawn to doing those assignments for a necklace. 

And more to the point, in Mormonism child-bearing is central to female identity. It is so much so, that even if we cannot bear children in this life for whatever reason, we can hope to do so in the eternities. 

Yes, I remember this idea around female identity and the hyper focus on marriage and baring children drove me nuts for most of my teens and twenties. I’m still not a big fan of it even though I’m a mom who’s main job nowadays is raising a kid.

 

with luv, 

BD 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes, I remember this idea around female identity and the hyper focus on marriage and baring children drove me nuts for most of my teens and twenties. I’m still not a big fan of it even though I’m a mom who’s main job nowadays is raising a kid.

 

with luv, 

BD 

Everyone is apparently a mother....(whether we want to be or not it seems at times)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/10/2021 at 1:28 AM, Meadowchik said:

Also, to be clear about this still incomplete comparison, having consensual sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy.

Reckless disregard for the consequence of one’s poor choice may not be a consent to that consequence, but that scarcely justifies removal of the consequence, especially to the detriment of an innocent party.