Jump to content

Elder andersen on abortion


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?  Even for you?

Even for me, eh? But... you don't know me since you've only been posting here for a day. Or have you? Do you mind answering me if you are Ahab?

3 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

It does now appear that you see some of the challenge it would be for a woman to continually choose to nurture her rapist's baby to full term. 

Of course I see that. No one in their right mind would deny it.

4 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Do you also see that baby as a reproduction of him, the rapist, within her?  It is what it is.  It is still him, within her.

Of course the child's genetics are a combination of him and the mother-victim. That doesn't change the fact one bit that the child is innocent.

7 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

A combination of him and her which will result in a completely new version of him

This is asinine. The child is not a new version of the rapist. The child is a unique being.

8 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Would you like to experience that? 

No, I would not. There are also thousands of other experiences I would not like to experience, either. What I would or would not like to experience does not affect morality.

9 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Do you think she should be forced to endure it?

It would be a terrible cross to bear. I do not deny it. There are many terrible crosses that the Lord asks us to pick up and carry. I believe the morally correct choice is for her to carry the child to term. And society should do everything in its power to support her in her very difficult situation.

10 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Comparing some other type of criminal to a rapist who inseminates a woman with his sperm against her will which results in her becoming pregnant with a new version of him and her is a bit ridiculous

Why? Do you believe rape is the worst sin? My understanding of LDS doctrine is that murder is worse than rape. What do you think?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mind explaining? God allows all sorts of evil to occur. How does that relate to this issue?

Saying the victim must suffer more because there will be another victim is not something that is morally resolvable by telling the first victim to "Suck it up Wimp!" So why does the situation exist? God would have to answer that.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen it said elsewhere and I agree with the sentiment that the church would be wise to lean into the idea of being both pro-life and pro-choice.

I think the "pro-choice" label carries way too much baggage.

The Church has staked out its position quite clearly.  I think that's good enough.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think they straddle that line now but the rhetoric focuses on the pro-life element as if there's a large population who simply wants to kill.

I think the Church's position does not straddle the line.  The Church condemns abortions in all but a very few and statistically tiny circumstances.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I mean, who is anti-life?

Who is anti-choice?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really? No one I've ever met. It seems like a false choice.

Would "pro-life" v. "pro-abortion" be a better fit?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm pro-life yet I am also anti-government telling people how and when they should be able to have abortions.

When it comes to protecting the lives of babies, I think the government has a role to play.  After all, the Declaration of Independence spoke of the right to life as "inalienable."

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The question of who gets to decide is at the center of this.

Actually, I think the personhood of the child "is at the center of this."

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Although people will NEVER agree on the when and how and why questions, I think we could realistically come to some level of agreement on the "who" question.

Perhaps.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the church is willing to allow for exceptions (quite a few in fact)

Nope.  Very few in fact.  Statistically a tiny percentage.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and leave the choice to the individual after seeking guidance from God, then I think that is a very pro-choice position.

Not really.  "Hard cases make bad law" and all that.

And again, the humanity of the child is a vital consideration.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not everyone will make a decision I agree with but I do agree the individual/family should be making the decision. Not the government. Not the church.

What about the child?  Does she have a say in whether she gets to live or not?

And since she's in utero, someone has to speak for her.  So why not "the government?"  Why not "the church?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "pro-choice" label carries way too much baggage.

The Church has staked out its position quite clearly.  I think that's good enough.

I think the Church's position does not straddle the line.  The Church condemns abortions in all but a very few and statistically tiny circumstances.

Who is anti-choice?

Would "pro-life" v. "pro-abortion" be a better fit?

When it comes to protecting the lives of babies, I think the government has a role to play.  After all, the Declaration of Independence spoke of the right to life as "inalienable."

Actually, I think the personhood of the child "is at the center of this."

Perhaps.  

Nope.  Very few in fact.  Statistically a tiny percentage.

Not really.  "Hard cases make bad law" and all that.

And again, the humanity of the child is a vital consideration.

What about the child?  Does she have a say in whether she gets to live or not?

And since she's in utero, someone has to speak for her.  So why not "the government?"  Why not "the church?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes- the church says abortion is a sin...except when it's not because the church views the reason to be justifiable enough that the individual can choose abortion or not.

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The child is not a new version of the rapist. The child is a unique being.

This may be at the core of our disagreement. 

I see a child as a reproduction of its parents.  A man and woman reproduce (themselves) to have a baby and the baby that results is a combination of its mother and father.  That is why DNA testing works to determine the parents of a baby.

You seem to see a baby as some unique being with no relation to its mother and father.  I don't know why you would think that but for some reason you are not acknowledging that a rapist's baby is an extension of the rapist with the rapist's DNA.

 

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I believe the morally correct choice is for her to carry the child to term.  And society should do everything in its power to support her in her very difficult situation.

To be a morally correct choice it would need to be her choice to do that, rather than someone else compelling her to make that choice, otherwise any society compelling her to make that choice would be as guilty as the rapist for compelling her to have that baby.  People reproducing themselves to have babies is never wrong, but anyone compelling a woman to have a baby against her own will needs to take a step back and stop busying themselves so much in another person's business..

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why?  Do you believe rape is the worst sin? My understanding of LDS doctrine is that murder is worse than rape. What do you think?

I believe rape is worse than murder in at least some sense, in that the creation of another person has an enduring effect that lasts forever while murder, the death/separation of a person's spirit from his or her body will last only until that person is resurrected.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, 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.

I have only found one convincing theodicy and it scares the hell out of me and I hope I am wrong.

I was satirizing your position. I apologize if it came across as an attempt at a carbon copy.

I think legalized abortion is good in the sense that it seems to have reduced the number of abortions. I would prefer a society with none but I don't know how to create it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

This may be at the core of our disagreement.

DNA is not at all the core of our disagreement. Unless you think that people who share DNA with terrible sinners don't have a right to life.

4 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

You seem to see a baby as some unique being with no relation to its mother and father.

Allow me to quote myself:

28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Of course the child's genetics are a combination of him and the mother-victim.

Yet I don't see how this has anything to do with whether or not it is moral to abort the child of a rapist unless, as I said above, "you think that people who share DNA with terrible sinners don't have a right to life."

6 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

To be a morally correct choice it would need to be her choice to do that

This is asinine, too. "A morally correct choice is one you choose."

7 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

anyone compelling a woman to have a baby against her own will needs to take a step back and stop busying themselves so much in another person's business..

Dang bro, you ARE pro-choice!

I always find it odd to discuss abortion with LDS, because at some point I usually end up hearing pro-choice arguments.

9 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

I believe rape is worse than murder in at least some sense, in that the creation of another person has an enduring effect that lasts forever while murder, the death/separation of a person's spirit from his or her body will last only until that person is resurrected.

Yes, and this is a good thing, both in Catholic and LDS theology, isn't it? From my understanding of LDS doctrine, coming to earth and getting a body is a wonderful thing, a step towards exaltation, right?

P.S. Why did you create a sock puppet account, Ahab? Were you banned again? Or just hoping for a fresh start?

  • Like 1
Link to post

The church doesn't accept abortion:  it merely recognizes that since God has yet to say when one spirit become irrevocably attached to a specific body, it is pure manmade to set the limit by leader fiat.

And it's decision not to withdraw member is not an endorsement, but a recognition that agency matters, that no one should be forced to carry a baby that resulted from rape or abuse, or that would mean they would die.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The listed exceptions include...

But whether you believe this is super narrow in impact or that it could affect quite a few situations, it doesn't really matter.

I think it matters a great deal.  The Church condemns virtually all abortions, and its (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).

Quote

The church has identified these areas.

And has identified them as rare exceptions.

And has stated that even these exceptions are not automatic.

And has otherwise condemned the vast majority of abortions.

The Church has promulgated a rule with a very small set of exceptions to it.  Those exceptions should not swallow the rule.

Quote

Can an individual have very justifiable reasons as well?

Not that I can see, no.  As between the preservation of the life of a baby and a competing interest, I think you'll have a hard time coming up with examples of the latter that outweigh the former.

Have you tried to do that, by the way?

Quote

Does the government? Who decides?

Ultimately, the government.

Quote

The only reasonable answer would be the individual.

Why is that?  What is the reasoning that allows Individual A to decide whether to electively kill Individual B?  Could you lay that out for me?

Quote

Why would anyone want to cede such an important choice that could affect their life and well-being forever to a bureaucrat or any other person or group?

Because the "important choice" involves . . . killing a baby.  

I am not a fan of big government.  But one role it is supposed to play in society is to preserve and protect our individual rights and liberties.  Life is the most fundamental of these, such that the government can and does have a say in the "choice" to terminate a life.

Quote

What if government doesn't agree with the church's list of exceptions?

I don't follow.  The government doesn't agree with the Church's list of exceptions right now, and hasn't done so since Roe v. Wade.

Quote

IMO- health of the mother can cover many situations.

The Church is promulgating a broad principle.  The government can enact legislation that defines the parameters of when an abortion affecting the life/health of the mother is at issue.

Quote

If my wife was having difficulties with her pregnancy (which she has) I don't want anyone else making decisions that could affect her life or my family.

I appreciate that.  But what if a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn?  Do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?

No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.

Again, the humanity of the child is a central consideration here.

Quote

This seems like a very fundamental right to self-govern.

I agree.  I commented on this back in 2019:

Quote

I find the "'controlling the agency of women' agenda" claim to be absurd.  I couldn't care less what women do to their hair or ears or any other of their body.  Tattoos?  Whatever.  Elective cosmetic surgery?  As you like.  Sterilization?  It's your choice.  And on and on and on.

I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  I think that is the overwhelmingly predominant concern of pro-lifers.  So the accusation that we (including around half of all women) have some sort of dark and twisted desire to "control the agency of women" is absurd.  Stupid.  I reject it out-of-hand.

The right to self-govern is not really at issue.  The right to electively kill a defenseless baby is the issue.

Quote

I'd be curious how a libertarian or a small-government conservative could argue for Government decision making in these cases.

I think the key issue is the humanity of the unborn child.  If the child is a human being, then it has rights.  If it has rights (including, notably, the right to live), then those rights deserve protection.

The "Police Power" under the U.S. Constitution refers to "the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."

More here (from the same link):

Quote

The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions. Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"), to justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.

Assuming the humanity of the child, the elective killing of the child would, in most cases, be implicated under both of these common law principles.

"Small-government" isn't synonymous with no government.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
4 minutes ago, rpn said:

And it's decision not to withdraw member is not an endorsement, but a recognition that agency matters, that no one should be forced to carry a baby that resulted from rape or abuse, or that would mean they would die.

If you remove the bold, then the question remains why should a child from rape or abuse be allowed to be aborted. If the bold is the answer, it is not a very good one, because agency matters in all situations, and there are, I presume, sins that require the withdrawal of membership, despite the use of agency to commit that sin.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why is that?  What is the reasoning that allows Individual A to decide whether to electively kill Individual B?  Could you lay that out for me?

I personally condemn abortion.

But the Bible does not regard foeticide as murder.  And so it isn't.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- the church says abortion is a sin...except when it's not

The church says the volitional killing of a human being is a sin...except when it's not.  This is why nobody suggests that the killings by John Wayne Gacy and the killings of John Basilone are morally equivalent.

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

because the church views the reason to be justifiable enough that the individual can choose abortion or not.

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:

Quote

Regrettable as is the loss of loved ones from war, these figures are dwarfed by the toll of a new war that annually claims more casualties than the total number of fatalities from all the wars of this nation.

It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn.

This war, labeled “abortion,” is of epidemic proportion and is waged globally. Over fifty-five million abortions were reported worldwide in the year 1974 alone. Sixty-four percent of the world’s population now live in countries that legally sanction this practice. In the United States of America, over 1.5 million abortions are performed annually. About 25–30 percent of all pregnancies now end in abortion. In some metropolitan areas, there are more abortions performed than live births. Comparable data also come from other nations.

Yet society professes reverence for human life. We weep for those who die, pray and work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it were a thing of naught?

What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth.

The Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Recently he added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6.) Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, the enlightened understood the sanctity of life. John Calvin, the sixteenth-century reformer, wrote: “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”

But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong?

These slogans begin with proper concern for the health of the mother. Infrequently, instances may occur in which the continuation of pregnancy could be life-threatening to the mother. When deemed by competent medical authorities that the life of one must be terminated in order to save the life of the other, many agree that it is better to spare the mother. But these circumstances are rare, particularly where modern medical care is available.

Another sympathetic concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The tragedy of this despoilment is compounded because, in such relationships, freedom of choice is denied the woman who is innocently involved.

But less than 3 percent of all abortions are performed for these two reasons. The other 97 percent are performed for what may be termed “reasons of convenience.”
...
 

Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices.

To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action.

So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action.

The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality.

It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science.

Approximately twenty-two days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At twenty-six days the circulation of blood begins.

Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.

Another excuse some use to justify abortion relates to population control. Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments, they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion. They live in squalor, oblivious to the divine teaching—stated in the scriptures not once, but thirty-four times—that people will prosper in the land only if they obey the commandments of God.

How can God fulfill his promise to prosper his children in obedience if they worship idols or destroy life created by him—destined to be in his very image?

They will prosper only when their education includes faith in and obedience to the God of this world, who said,

“I, the Lord, … built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide. … But it must needs be done in mine own way. … For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” (D&C 104:14–17; italics added.)

Now, as a servant of the Lord, I dutifully warn those who advocate and practice abortion that they incur the wrath of Almighty God, who declared, “If men … hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, … he shall be surely punished.” (Ex. 21:22.)

Of those who shed innocent blood, a prophet declared: “The judgments which [God] shall exercise … in his wrath [shall] be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (Alma 14:11.)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. One hundred years ago the First Presidency wrote: “And we again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.”

Early in his presidency, our beloved President Spencer W. Kimball said, “We decry abortions and ask our people to refrain from this serious transgression.”

Why destroy a life that could bring such joy to others?

Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.

Yes, life is precious! No one can cuddle a cherished newborn baby, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and caress that miraculous creation without deepening reverence for life and for our Creator.

Life comes from life. It is a gift from our Heavenly Father. It is eternal, as he is eternal. Innocent life is not sent by him to be destroyed! This doctrine is not of me, but is that of the living God and of his divine Son, which I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I am persuaded by these words.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

DNA is not at all the core of our disagreement. Unless you think that people who share DNA with terrible sinners don't have a right to life.

My main point is this, and it is personal to me: Nobody should have the right to force a woman to have a baby against her own will.  Nobody.  Not a rapist.  Not even an entire society of people who think a woman should be forced to have a baby.

So now the question may appear to be:  Should a woman choose to have a baby in a pregnancy that was forced upon her by a man who raped her and caused one of her eggs to become impregnated with his sperm?

I would ask any woman in question what she would choose to do, and why, because I would not want to force her decision in any way.

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:
Quote

Why is that?  What is the reasoning that allows Individual A to decide whether to electively kill Individual B?  Could you lay that out for me?

I personally condemn abortion.

But the Bible does not regard foeticide as murder.  And so it isn't.

You will note that I said "electively kill."  I didn't say "murder."  Nor did I imply such a thing.

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.

As it happens, Sec. 38.6.1 of the Church's Handbook, which addresses abortion, begins with:

Quote

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are...

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then you hit the problem that if conception creates human life than spontaneous miscarriages constitute genocide and we should really do something about that.

I've known plenty of women who would gladly welcome medical advancements which would make miscarriages a thing of the past. 

Perhaps we'll get there someday.

Until that happens though, I don't think you can characterize such loss of life as "genocide" as it isn't deliberate. 

 

Link to post
37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you remove the bold, then the question remains why should a child from rape or abuse be allowed to be aborted. If the bold is the answer, it is not a very good one, because agency matters in all situations, and there are, I presume, sins that require the withdrawal of membership, despite the use of agency to commit that sin.

Have you tried asking a woman who was raped?  You could ask as nicely as you know how to ask such a question.

Why should you be allowed to abort your pregnancy that resulted from your rape? 

Why isn't the fact that you are pregnant enough to make you want to give birth to the child of the rapist who raped you?

Isn't any baby you could give birth to wonderful enough regardless of who the father is or how he caused you to become pregnant?

 

I just would not want to be in the same camp of people who would say something like this to a woman who was raped by a rapist who caused her to become pregnant:

WE think that any baby you could have is so wonderful that regardless of who the father is, and regardless of how the baby turns out, and even regardless of who you are, you should not be allowed to abort your pregnancy.

And by God we are going to do everything in our power to make sure you never abort any baby that is within your own body.  Because WE see no good reason to ever allow that to happen.

Link to post
38 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Nobody should have the right to force a woman to have a baby against her own will

Nobody should have the right to kill an innocent child. The unborn are the voiceless and rely on us to speak for them and advocate for them, and I will do so.

And I will also advocate for the women that need so much more support from our society. A single minded focus on the legality of abortion will not solve the problem. It is a systemic issue that can only be solved by creating a system to fix it. We cannot separate the mother from the child: before conception, during pregnancy, and after birth.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Have you tried asking a woman who was raped?  You could ask as nicely as you know how to ask such a question.

Why should you be allowed to abort your pregnancy that resulted from your rape? 

Why isn't the fact that you are pregnant enough to make you want to give birth to the child of the rapist who raped you?

Isn't any baby you could give birth to wonderful enough regardless of who the father is or how he caused you to become pregnant?

 

I just would not want to be in the same camp of people who would say something like this to a woman who was raped by a rapist who caused her to become pregnant:

WE think that any baby you could have is so wonderful that regardless of who the father is, and regardless of how the baby turns out, and even regardless of who you are, you should not be allowed to abort your pregnancy.

And by God we are going to do everything in our power to make sure you never abort any baby that is within your own body.  Because WE see no good reason to ever allow that to happen.

You are trying to set up two camps: one cares for the woman-victim (pro-choice) and the other does not (pro-life).

I reject that false dichotomy.

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You will note that I said "electively kill."  I didn't say "murder."  Nor did I imply such a thing

 

Let me correct myself for hypertechnicality's sake.  The Bible does not treat foeticide as homicide, meaning the killing of a human being. It treats it as property loss. 

Have compassion for the poor sisters who make this mistake. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I've known plenty of women who would gladly welcome medical advancements which would make miscarriages a thing of the past. 

Perhaps we'll get there someday.

Until that happens though, I don't think you can characterize such loss of life as "genocide" as it isn't deliberate. 

 

I’m not even talking about those. Many miscarriages occur before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. If those are all lives then saying that it is not deliberate is not really a defense. Someone dying of a disease is not deliberate but we try to prevent it. I just wonder how the “life begins at conception” people can sleep at night while doing nothing about all these deaths. If they are right that those are human lives it is the greatest healthcare crisis ever and it is being ignored.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you remove the bold, then the question remains why should a child from rape or abuse be allowed to be aborted. If the bold is the answer, it is not a very good one, because agency matters in all situations, and there are, I presume, sins that require the withdrawal of membership, despite the use of agency to commit that sin.

Honestly, the only answer the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has is "when God says it is allowable."  That's why abortion under such circumstances is considered rare and the exception, not the rule.  There is no blanket allowance given from God, even when rape or incest are the cause of abuse.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Nobody should have the right to kill an innocent child. The unborn are the voiceless and rely on us to speak for them and advocate for them, and I will do so.

And I will also advocate for the women that need so much more support from our society. A single minded focus on the legality of abortion will not solve the problem. It is a systemic issue that can only be solved by creating a system to fix it. We cannot separate the mother from the child: before conception, during pregnancy, and after birth.

I wonder how much our beliefs about babies affects our ideas about abortion.  What if you somehow found out, for example, that a fetus growing within its mothers body didn't become a separate person until another spirit entered that body after birth?

That while the fetus is in the mother's body, it is only a combination of a mortal woman's egg and a man's sperm with no spirit of its own or at least not occupying that body all of the time, developing to a point when it could later be inhabited by a spirit, and would need that spirit within that body to keep it alive.  But until it became independent it was only the spirit of the woman keeping the fetus alive by the fetus being within the woman's body.

If that were the case, that the spirit that would later inhabit the fetus within its mother's womb wasn't there or at least not full time while the fetus is in the woman's body, then it would actually be an abortion rather than a killing to end that pregnancy.

In scripture we have several clues as to whether or not a spirit is in a fetus within its mortal mother's womb full time or part time before birth.  Like when the Lord appeared to Nephi the night before he was born to tell him he was coming into the world.  And yet we know the fetus of John (who was to be known as the Baptist) leaped (or maybe just kicked around) in his mortal mother's womb months before when his mother heard Jesus would be born to Mary.  So it appears a spirit is at least able to visit its mother's womb part time if not full time before birth.  

And the fact that a pregnancy can be aborted does nothing to end the life of the spirit who could have been born in that body.  Any spirit of God is eternal, so aborting a pregnancy just means the spirit will need to find another time to be born.

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...