Jump to content

Elder andersen on abortion


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This isn’t accurate. It’s a common trope and makes sense on the surface....until you really think about it. 

Intercourse in general from only a reproductive stance formed to share genetic material to create genetically diverse offspring. It is one form of reproduction. Some species adhere to using it primarIly for that. But several use it for a variety reasons: fun, bonding, conflict resolution, etc. For some species the reproductive function has become secondary for these social functions. That includes us. ThinK of it this way if you tallied all the times that a person has a s*xual encounter in their life and then cross off all the ones that didn’t include intercourse, all the ones that didn’t happen during ovulation, the times it happen between opposite sex partners, and the times it didn’t happen with major physical and hormonal barriers to impede reproduction ...you aren’t going to have more than a small fraction of their total sexual interactions. And that’s if you don’t distinguish between actively/passively trying and oopsies. It likely will shrink even further.

evolution often includes using the same biological function in multiple needed ways to continue a species. Social interactions are fundamental to human health. So I would posture considering most of the the interactions a sexually active person will have is non reproductive and therefore outside the reproductive imperative, that the primary purpose in humans for sex is social. 

Okay, I’m off my sex therapy soap box. 

I think we are just not using "primary purpose" in the same way. You seem to be using like this: if we were to make a bar chart of human sexual encounters, with "Reasons" on the X axis and "Number" on the Y axis, then the primary purpose for sex would be the one with the highest count (i.e., the arithmetic mode).  

I recognize that people engage in sexual activity for lots of reasons, and the majority of the time the reason isn't expressly for reproduction.

I don't know that I would agree with your assessment about "social" being the number one purpose in that view though - I think that would still probably go to pleasure / gratification. 

Regardless, when I say that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, I don't mean that reproduction is the most common reason for sexual behavior, I mean that it's the most important reason. 

Now, maybe you would still disagree with that, but hopefully it will at least make it a little more clear what I was trying to say.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Regardless, when I say that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, I don't mean that reproduction is the most common reason for sexual behavior, I mean that it's the most important reason. 

Yeah, and I’m disagreeing with that part. And that’s what I was pointing out on evolutionary traits, let alone spiritually. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 4/11/2021 at 6:04 AM, Meadowchik said:

No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body.

To frame the question another way, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 4/11/2021 at 3:04 AM, Meadowchik said:

No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body.

I agree, but I think there are only 2 situations when a person/woman is forced to carry another person inside her body... and yes this always applies only to women because women are the only people who are able to carry another person inside their body.

1) When a woman is raped and one of her eggs is impregnated with her rapist's sperm, 

2) When the spirit of another person inhabits her body against her will.

All other situations when another spirit/person inhabits a woman's body is always and only allowed to happen with her consent, with her allowing it to happen.

Link to post
39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To frame the question another way, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

I think this is an excellent, succinct way to frame the question (unless it is just posed rhetorically). Somewhere between "a callous woman who decides at 20 or 30 weeks that she just doesn't want to be pregnant anymore" and "terminating an ectopic pregnancy because the chances of mother and baby surviving is essentially nil." is a line/point (probably more of a gray area than a bright division, I think) that makes abortions on one side of that line morally acceptable and abortions on the other side immoral. I think my main criticism of Elder Andersen's talk is that he brought nothing new to the discussion that helps determine where the line/point/region lies between the morality of terminating a pregnancy and the morality of compelling the woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Elder Andersen basically just reiterates the same basic talking points we have been saying for generations (see summary of abortion rhetoric in the Church here: https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2019/08/21/church-rhetoric-on-abortion-and-why-members-are-generally-pro-life/  IMO, while the Church teaches that there are scenarios where abortion is acceptable, the Church also fails to provide a solid moral framework for understanding how to make those morally significant decisions.

Not sure why the link wants to show up at the bottom of the comments rather than the top of the blog post, but it's there.

Edited by MrShorty
  • Like 1
Link to post
56 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is an excellent, succinct way to frame the question (unless it is just posed rhetorically). Somewhere between "a callous woman who decides at 20 or 30 weeks that she just doesn't want to be pregnant anymore" and "terminating an ectopic pregnancy because the chances of mother and baby surviving is essentially nil." is a line/point (probably more of a gray area than a bright division, I think) that makes abortions on one side of that line morally acceptable and abortions on the other side immoral. I think my main criticism of Elder Andersen's talk is that he brought nothing new to the discussion that helps determine where the line/point/region lies between the morality of terminating a pregnancy and the morality of compelling the woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Elder Andersen basically just reiterates the same basic talking points we have been saying for generations (see summary of abortion rhetoric in the Church here: https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2019/08/21/church-rhetoric-on-abortion-and-why-members-are-generally-pro-life/  IMO, while the Church teaches that there are scenarios where abortion is acceptable, the Church also fails to provide a solid moral framework for understanding how to make those morally significant decisions.

Not sure why the link wants to show up at the bottom of the comments rather than the top of the blog post, but it's there.

Not rhetorical at all --  I noticed that the morality of sexual pleasure was getting a lot of attention when both killing and compulsion are antithetical to and more powerful forces than pleasure (pathological considerations aside).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Regardless, when I say that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, I don't mean that reproduction is the most common reason for sexual behavior, I mean that it's the most important reason. 

That is a subjective position though.  What is important in one context is not as important in another. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, CV75 said:

To frame the question another way, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

If you have a human inside you, you can answer the question about morality about carrying them. Otherwise, the morality of carrying them is not your question. It is never moral for us to try to force another person to carry a pregnancy.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If you have a human inside you, you can answer the question about morality about carrying them. Otherwise, the morality of carrying them is not your question. It is never moral for us to try to force another person to carry a pregnancy.

I don't think you mean to say that only pregnant women should be discussing the question of when killing the human being inside them is more moral than compelling them to be carried...

Link to post
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think you mean to say that only pregnant women should be discussing the question of when killing the human being inside them is more moral than compelling them to be carried...

What I mean to say is that when a person is carrying a human being inside their body, whether to continue to do so is their decision, not anyone else's. And so it it immoral for anyone to try to force them to.

 

 

Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

That is a subjective position though.  What is important in one context is not as important in another. 

Well yes, it's an opinion, so of course it's subjective. Do you think there is an objective way to determine the most important reason for sexual behavior? 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What I mean to say is that when a person is carrying a human being inside their body, whether to continue to do so is their decision, not anyone else's. And so it it immoral for anyone to try to force them to.

 

 

I go back to the analogy of the obligation to provide shelter, food, clothing and education for one’s offspring (which analogy you apparently are intent on ignoring). Consistent with your logic, a parent should be the only one who has a say in what happens to those children, whether they stay in the home or whether they are kicked out into the street, child welfare agencies, the legal system and the whole of the rest of society be damned. 
 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well yes, it's an opinion, so of course it's subjective. Do you think there is an objective way to determine the most important reason for sexual behavior? 

 

From a biological standpoint, it IS the most important (primary) reason, all other reasons being ancillary to it. The purpose is to perpetuate the species. Pleasure gratification serves that end, as individuals probably wouldn’t otherwise engage in it. 

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

What I mean to say is that when a person is carrying a human being inside their body, whether to continue to do so is their decision, not anyone else's. And so it it immoral for anyone to try to force them to.

My question is: at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

Link to post

What's the best way to explain elective abortion to a seven year old girl?  It doesn't matter how I explain it, she keeps recoiling in horror at the thought.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

My question is: at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

And my answer is that the morality of it begins and ends with the person carrying the pregnancy exactly because they are the one carrying the human being inside them.

This is not a completely foreign way to frame morality, there are other life choices which the morality can be agent-determined. For example, a person may decide whether consenting to sex is moral or not. It is their choice, their determination to make not anyone elses. But forcing them, on the other hand, is wrong.

Link to post
39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And my answer is that the morality of it begins and ends with the person carrying the pregnancy exactly because they are the one carrying the human being inside them.

This is not a completely foreign way to frame morality, there are other life choices which the morality can be agent-determined. For example, a person may decide whether consenting to sex is moral or not. It is their choice, their determination to make not anyone elses. But forcing them, on the other hand, is wrong.

Given that the agent can also take the form of a proactive societal entity and function accordingly, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

Link to post
19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given that the agent can also take the form of a proactive societal entity and function accordingly, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?

It's never moral to compel the continuation of a pregnancy. And whether termination of the pregnancy is moral or not is up to the person who is pregnant.

Your question is like asking, "Given that the female can also take the form of a proactive societal entity and function accordingly, at what point is her not  consenting to sex more moral than someone else raping her?"

Do you see the nonsensical nature of your question now?

Link to post
18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If you have a human inside you, you can answer the question about morality about carrying them. Otherwise, the morality of carrying them is not your question. It is never moral for us to try to force another person to carry a pregnancy.

So I don't agree with your position on abortion at all. personally, If I could, I would outlaw abortion in all cases except for rape, incest and the health of the mother. 

  My question to you is, besides the 3 examples I gave above, why should the mother and father be rewarded with a "get out of jail free card" (abortion), because they were to ignorant to keep his penis out of her vagina? If you have to satisfy the sexual urge, there's 1000s of ways of doing that without having to insert your loaf of bread inside her oven. For example, vibrators have come a long way, they're so powerful today some have the ability to loosen fillings in teeth if you're not careful. I'll leave it up to you to think about all the other ways a couple can satisfy their horniess.

  Obviously, this is a very heated topic, do you see a middle ground that we could agree on? Let me give you an example to see if you would agree. Let's say in the future if an expectant mother and father wanted to have an abortion, one of the steps would have to be that they attend an abortion procedure. In one room could be the doctor, nurse and woman receiving the abortion, like usual. In another room would be the expectant mother who is thinking about getting an abortion and hopefully the twerp that stuck his penis inside her. They would watch the procedure from a monitor and be able to see when the doctor pulled out the arms and legs of the baby after he ripped them from the torso of the baby inside the expectant mother. Then they could watch while the doctor removes the heart, lungs, intestines and finally when he inserts the 13" long clamps that crushes the babies skull so it can make it past the cervix. Finally, I think once the procedure is complete and the patient is safe, the nurse should bring the baby in the room where they just watched the abortion and have the couple reassemble the baby to make sure all the pieces are there. Maybe hold the crushed skull in their hands. Then have them put the baby in a bio bag and throw it in the trash. If they can make it past that experience and still want an abortion, then they can proceed.

   The above paragraph isn't a joke, I'm serious. I think it's important for the person having an abortion to know exactly what's going on in the procedure. Personally I think if we did something like this abortions would drop by 70 or 80 percent. 

   What do you think? 

    Also, I think as a country, we need to put more emphasis on adoption and make it one of our most important goals to perfect in the future.

  

      

Edited by AtlanticMike
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It's never moral to compel the continuation of a pregnancy. And whether termination of the pregnancy is moral or not is up to the person who is pregnant.

Your question is like asking, "Given that the female can also take the form of a proactive societal entity and function accordingly, at what point is her not  consenting to sex more moral than someone else raping her?"

Do you see the nonsensical nature of your question now?

You have both made it nonsensical and changed it.

My question is like asking, "Given that the female carrying a human being is part of a proactive societal entity and functions accordingly, at what point is her killing the human being she carries more moral than her member society compelling her to carry them?"

Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's never moral to compel the continuation of a pregnancy.

A premise with which not everyone agrees. And, I might add, is not obviously true.  

One might (reasonably) posit the following as a starting point instead: It's never moral to kill innocent people. 

 

Quote

And whether termination of the pregnancy is moral or not is up to the person who is pregnant.

Nonsense.

If a woman who is eight and a half months pregnant decides to terminate her pregnancy just because she wants to fly to Europe for vacation (merely for fun and not because of some crazy, lifeboat type scenario you might try to come up with), that's immoral. Period.

 

Edited by Amulek
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You keep stating this as a given conclusion. The problem is what you are saying is exactly what is in dispute. Repeating it over and over doesn't remove the dispute.

The true definition of “begging the question,” by the way. 

  • Upvote 1
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...