SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Typical gaslighting response that you and yours love to trot out any time Latter-day Saints defend themselves from various calumnies and falsehoods.

Gaslighting? 🤣

Carry on.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you understand this actually quite well. Will you be eternally married in the terrestrial kingdom?  Will your children be sealed to you?  Can you visit them if they are in the celestial kingdom and you are not?  This is really a rather silly line of questioning.

Talking with some friends recently and we've found that many of us have struggled with a faith crises soon after a child has struggles that could affect their eternity.  I long ago put much less emphasis on being "together" with my children and parents because of logistics of how that might work given billions of people, but even with that I was really thrown with one of my child's struggles.  

I've come to the conclusion we really just don't have any real understanding of how things work in the next life.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

Talking with some friends recently and we've found that many of us have struggled with a faith crises soon after a child has struggles that could affect their eternity.  I long ago put much less emphasis on being "together" with my children and parents because of logistics of how that might work given billions of people, but even with that I was really thrown with one of my child's struggles.  

I've come to the conclusion we really just don't have any real understanding of how things work in the next life.

I thought that one of the benefits of the restoration was having prophets who teach us these types of things.  But based on where the church has headed over my lifetime and the way the apologists approach it, yea we really don't know much at all and prophet get it wrong. A lot.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought that one of the benefits of the restoration was having prophets who teach us these types of things.  But based on where the church has headed over my lifetime and the way the apologists approach it, yea we really don't know much at all and prophet get it wrong. A lot.

I don't think we know enough to know if they got it wrong.   They could be wrong, but they also could be right, but we lack so very much understanding of how it all fits together.  

So at this point I just trust God, knowing He loved my children before I did, that it will work out in some way...

[Fether]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you understand this actually quite well. Will you be eternally married in the terrestrial kingdom?  Will your children be sealed to you?  Can you visit them if they are in the celestial kingdom and you are not?  This is really a rather silly line of questioning.

As I have studied more in depth, I’ve found that a lot of these preconceived assumptions about “doctrine” are not actually back by anything solid.
 

You seem very sure about these statements so I am asking for your sources.

Does not being sealed to your child mean you can no longer see them? In the afterlife, my child is not going to be 4 years old, we are going to be the same age and of the same level of wisdom and experience.

Could it be that eternal families doesn’t refer to being able to be around your family for eternity, but rather that we can continue to grow our families and act as a father to children for eternity?

I don’t know, I’m trying to find clarification on this.

To make the blanket statement “people in the terrestrial kingdom won’t be able to be around their family” seems pretty asinine, especially when you consider that there won’t be any bars between me and my friend from high school. Why would I be barred from seeing my brother, who is also in the terrestrial kingdom, when No such barriers exist between me and my high school buddy?  Where is it written that a person in the terrestrial kingdom can’t visit or be visited by someone from the celestial kingdom. I know the cultural views on this and the teachings I got from my Sunday school teachers and seminary teachers… but I can’t find those written anywhere

So I ask… where are there clarifications and specifications of what “eternal family” means?

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think we know enough to know if they got it wrong.   They could be wrong, but they also could be right, but we lack so very much understanding of how it all fits together.  

So at this point I just trust God, knowing He loved my children before I did, that it will work out in some way...

I am happy that works for you.  

[Teancum]

37 minutes ago, Fether said:

As I have studied more in depth, I’ve found that a lot of these preconceived assumptions about “doctrine” are not actually back by anything solid.
 

You seem very sure about these statements so I am asking for your sources.

Does not being sealed to your child mean you can no longer see them? In the afterlife, my child is not going to be 4 years old, we are going to be the same age and of the same level of wisdom and experience.

Could it be that eternal families doesn’t refer to being able to be around your family for eternity, but rather that we can continue to grow our families and act as a father to children for eternity?

I don’t know, I’m trying to find clarification on this.

To make the blanket statement “people in the terrestrial kingdom won’t be able to be around their family” seems pretty asinine, especially when you consider that there won’t be any bars between me and my friend from high school. Why would I be barred from seeing my brother, who is also in the terrestrial kingdom, when No such barriers exist between me and my high school buddy?  Where is it written that a person in the terrestrial kingdom can’t visit or be visited by someone from the celestial kingdom. I know the cultural views on this and the teachings I got from my Sunday school teachers and seminary teachers… but I can’t find those written anywhere

So I ask… where are there clarifications and specifications of what “eternal family” means?

I am not sure I want to invest the time into this. I will see.  

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I want to invest the time into this. I will see.  

That’s fine. I don’t even know where to start.
 

I would recommend that if you are attacking what the church teaches, that you actually find out what the church teaches. It will help you lead more people out of it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

My prediction for Dobbs:

The Court will overrule the "viability" standard in Casey, but keep the "undue burden" test.  But the Court will decline to define what an "undue burden" at this time, leaving it for future cases to suss out.  This will have the effect of keeping the central holding of Roe, but giving states much more latitude to pass abortion regulations and restrictions than they now have.  In other words, states will not be allowed to outright ban abortions, but they will be able to restrict it heavily.

This sort of incremental approach may appeal to the centrists on the Court, like Roberts and Barrett.  It has the appearance of upholding most of the previous abortion precedents, but still delivers a powerful victory to the pro-life cause.

Long story short: Roe upheld, Casey partially overturned, the Mississippi law in question upheld.

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, Fether said:

That’s fine. I don’t even know where to start.
 

I would recommend that if you are attacking what the church teaches, that you actually find out what the church teaches. It will help you lead more people out of it.

I think I Am fairly well versed in what the church teaches. Your unique ideas on the topic at hand are yours really.  I doubt you can back them up.  And I am not working to lead people out of the church. 

[Fether]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think I Am fairly well versed in what the church teaches. Your unique ideas on the topic at hand are yours really.  I doubt you can back them up.  And I am not working to lead people out of the church. 

My ideas are just that, ideas. And they are there because I can’t find sources for the many many things I was taught as a youth by volunteer Sunday school teachers and other adults trying to teach something that isn’t fully explained in doctrine.

In response to you saying you are well versed in what the church teaches, I would ask you where you learned that people in the terrestrial kingdom will be barred from there family? That is an idea I had in my mind growing up… but I can’t seem to find any reference to that in any church literature.

[kimpearson]

Why don't we just judge the correctness of doctrine and belief by its fruits.   Abortions have bad fruit.  Not having an abortion would appear to be the truth.  Putting women in jail doesn't seem to be a good fruit either so is making abortion illegal a correct belief.  Giving us free agency in a fallen world definitely has good fruit and I would argue trumps the previous two. 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Why don't we just judge the correctness of doctrine and belief by its fruits.   Abortions have bad fruit.  Not having an abortion would appear to be the truth.  Putting women in jail doesn't seem to be a good fruit either so is making abortion illegal a correct belief.  Giving us free agency in a fallen world definitely has good fruit and I would argue trumps the previous two. 

Not all abortion has bad fruit though.  Saving a mother's life would be good fruit.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

That is an idea I had in my mind growing up… but I can’t seem to find any reference to that in any church literature.

It doesn’t make sense to me because at least family who was in the CK would be perfect and thus perfectly loving and therefore if there was family in the lower kingdoms that were willing to receive them, they would be there.

[Stargazer]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:36 AM, kimpearson said:

No falsehoods just an understanding from all your various posts of your feelings.  If I have misinterpreted them, then tell me what was intended.

How can you say this is not a religious issue?  The vast majority of opposition to abortion comes from the religious right who have taken a strong religious belief and used that belief to fuel opposition to a legal position established by the supreme court.  Why does this court need to overturn what a previous court ruled on?  Scott G. Stewart is just one man talking from his narrow point of view legally.  My comments are nothing more than my opinion and my viewpoint.  I am not worried about the fact that many won't agree with them.  Your one sentence comments and cutting into pieces other peoples comments are not convincing to me.  Could you possibly put together a comment longer than one sentence to explain your ideas?  Maybe that is why others understand your comments in a way that you want to respond "imputed falsehoods".

I'm getting to this late, and perhaps it has already been mentioned in the pages of text after your post: of course there are religious arguments against abortion, but there are simple moral arguments irrespective of religious arguments, and plenty of people adhere to those as well. This makes the subject not primarily a religious matter.

There was a famous atheist (or at least she was famous within the Libertarian movement), Doris Gordon, who founded "Libertarians for Life. She wrote in opposition to abortion because of a fundamental respect for human life that grew out of the non-initiation of force principle. See: A Wrong, Not a Right: An Atheist Libertarian Looks at Abortion. More recently there's this: The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights, by Kelsey Hazzard. Just because theists oppose abortion based on their religious convictions does not mean that those are the only convictions the abortionist needs to address. 

You think that just because it is the religious vast majority who oppose abortion, that this makes it the only argument against it? I disagree. Perhaps it is easiest to overcome religious objections, since one doesn't hold them himself, but they are by far not the only ones.

[Danzo]

On 12/7/2021 at 9:22 AM, kimpearson said:

Putting women in jail doesn't seem to be a good fruit either so is making abortion illegal a correct belief. 

Making something illegal doesn't mean someone goes to jail.  I would say the overwhelming majority of doing something "illegal" doesn't result in jail time. 

[Chum]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Making something illegal doesn't mean someone goes to jail.

Jail is just one type of Gov revenge.

[smac97]

On 12/1/2021 at 2:53 PM, CV75 said:

Granted, my comments are looking past the immediate decision to be made by the Supreme Court. Should human fetuses without biological viability be granted personhood, a biologically viable person, also having personhood, would be limited in the legal exercise of their choice to abort. The DNA (the data / information) thus determines personhood since viability is not relevant, and the right to choose is inherent in personhood.

Where we do not know the fetus’ capacity to choose, or their choice, the default is to wait until we do.

The current discussion to grant personhood irrespective of biological viability opens up the way for AI personhood and their attendant rights to choose. So, intelligent entities could thus conceivably be granted personhood, and have the same legal exercise to abort their “v.2” or even artificially conceived human beings for whom they are surrogate gestating parents. They would have the same protection from destruction, both “pre-”and “post-” artificial viability, with conditions for permitting destruction.

Regarding the "personhood" of in utero babies, I just came across an article that merits some attention (I'll exclude the "political" call outs in it) :

Quote

When Governor Matt Bevin walks out of his office for the last time last night, it’s somewhat fitting that the U.S. Supreme Court picked yesterday to uphold one of the most important laws he ever signed — the Kentucky ultrasound bill.
...
The last thing the abortion industry wants is for moms to come face-to-face with the personhood of their child. It’s why they’ve poured millions of dollars into fighting heartbeat bills, sonograms, even basic medical disclaimers. When it comes to abortion, technology is — and always has been — the single biggest enemy of the Left. Nothing comes between women and their business more than the truth about these tiny humans in the womb — humans that yawn, smile, suck their thumbs.

The imaging is so advanced these days that doctors can track something as small as a baby’s hiccup. It’s a game-changer. Which is exactly why groups like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are trying to shut down laws like Kentucky’s. It’s hard enough to get moms to destroy their babies. But it’s near impossible once they see and hear how intensely human their children are.

For young moms like Lisa, who never wanted to be pregnant in the first place, it was a revelation. “I didn’t want to go through with having the baby,” she explained. “I didn’t want to face all of the challenges that a single mom would.” And besides, she said, “My life was just beginning,” and this, “makes you feel like your life is over.” She made three appointments to abort her little girl. But every time, she found a reason not to go. Something just wasn’t right. She went back to the pregnancy care center and they offered her a free sonogram. “I heard the heartbeat,” Lisa remembers, “and it made it all real. There was a real life inside of me.” It made her realize that “no matter what I was feeling or thinking at the time, I had a little one to worry about.”

As hard as it was to tell her parents, Lisa was overcome when they found her note and called her crying. “Through tears they told me they would help — no matter what.” It hasn’t always been easy, but her daughter, Selah, has been the joy of her life. A few years later, while her daughter played at the park, Lisa struck up a conversation with a woman sitting by her on the bench. Laura was her name. She said she worked at Life Network. Stunned, Lisa pointed to the blonde little girl on the swings. “The pregnancy center saved her life!” she exclaimed.

It’s a miraculous story — one the folks at Planned Parenthood don’t want to see repeated. In its challenge, the ACLU even argued that giving women these options was somehow a violation of doctors’ free speech. But the Supreme Court didn’t buy it. Just like they haven’t bought other lies about “informed consent” laws. Under Kentucky’s, all doctors are required to do is describe the ultrasound while moms listen to the heartbeat. If the women choose, they can shut their eyes and cover their ears. Even still, the ACLU calls it “unconstitutional and unethical.”

No, what’s unethical is misleading women about the personhood of their baby and the life-long consequences of aborting her. Even now, Laura says, she’s met other young moms who “couldn’t see past their circumstances — a child they’re not ready for, a relationship they’d rather escape.” But then they see their baby’s “heartbeat, fingers, and toes.” She says they see the impact of their ultrasound machine every day. Thanks to the Supreme Court, let’s hope Kentucky can say the same thing about their informed consent law.

Good stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the "personhood" of in utero babies, I just came across an article that merits some attention (I'll exclude the "political" call outs in it) :

Good stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

It would be interesting, as DNA data becomes more detailed in connection with many decisions to abort, the emotional reaction to the fetus (or earlier) having the mother's and her loved ones' physical features. This would also contribute to the concept of personhood at the earlier, "non-viable" stages, which adds pressure on evaluating the inherent value of personhood rather than the inalienable rights connected with it. This would add to the life-and-death decisions consideration of who has more emotional connections, the DNA-person or the mother-person.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the "personhood" of in utero babies, I just came across an article that merits some attention (I'll exclude the "political" call outs in it) :

Good stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Those horrific laws? People are praising them. Yuck.

[provoman]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:22 PM, Stargazer said:

You think that just because it is the religious vast majority who oppose abortion, that this makes it the only argument against it? I disagree. Perhaps it is easiest to overcome religious objections, since one doesn't hold them himself, but they are by far not the only ones.

I suppose, in my opinion, that where theists and atheists agree, the theists should argue from the atheists viewpoint and not a religious viewpoint. My first post in the thread was about my experience regarding abortion and perception was I had not experienced opposition to abortion from a non-theists viewpoint.

[smac97]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:22 PM, Stargazer said:

I'm getting to this late, and perhaps it has already been mentioned in the pages of text after your post: of course there are religious arguments against abortion, but there are simple moral arguments irrespective of religious arguments, and plenty of people adhere to those as well. This makes the subject not primarily a religious matter.

There was a famous atheist (or at least she was famous within the Libertarian movement), Doris Gordon, who founded "Libertarians for Life. She wrote in opposition to abortion because of a fundamental respect for human life that grew out of the non-initiation of force principle. See: A Wrong, Not a Right: An Atheist Libertarian Looks at Abortion. More recently there's this: The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights, by Kelsey Hazzard. Just because theists oppose abortion based on their religious convictions does not mean that those are the only convictions the abortionist needs to address. 

You think that just because it is the religious vast majority who oppose abortion, that this makes it the only argument against it? I disagree. Perhaps it is easiest to overcome religious objections, since one doesn't hold them himself, but they are by far not the only ones.

Good stuff.  

By way of example, let's take a look at Jack Nicholson.  What are his religious views?  Well...

Quote

During a 1992 Vanity Fair interview, Nicholson stated, "I don't believe in God now. I can still work up an envy for someone who has faith. I can see how that could be a deeply soothing experience."

And here:

Quote

Nicholson was raised as a Catholic but stopped attending church in high school. In a 1992 Vanity Fair interview, he said, "I don't believe in God now." Twelve years later, in an Esquire magazine interview, he said that he prayed "to something" and had "a God sense. It's not religious so much as superstitious. It's part of being human, I guess."

"I resist all established beliefs. My religion basically is to be immediate, to live in the now. It's an old cliché, I know, but it's mine. I envy people of faith. I'm incapable of believing in anything supernatural. So far, at least. Not that I wouldn't like to."

—Nicholson, interview with Esquire magazine (January 2004)

So he's not really a very religious person.  But what are his views on abortion?  See here:

Quote

In September 2015, several web sites published articles claiming that Jack Nicholson was “positively against” abortion:

“I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.”

This short statement is full of humility, wisdom, and courage. Note that he says, “I don’t have the right to any other view.” He has understood, thanks to the knowledge that his own life almost never happened, that life is a gift for which we should all feel gratitude. His willingness to vocally oppose abortion in the face of Hollywood and his own political party is inspiring and should be encouraged.

While these articles were presented as current news stories, that is not the case.

Nicholson’s statement comes from a 1984 interview with Rolling Stone magazine in which the actor talked about his complicated family life. During the interview, Nicholson said that he was “positively against” abortion since his mother June nearly decided to end her pregnancy:

I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life. If June and Ethel had been of less character, I would never have gotten to live. These women gave me the gift of life. It’s a feminist narrative in the very pure form.

Despite Nicholson’s comments to Rolling Stone in 1984, the actor told the Washington Post in 1990 that while he was personally against abortion he still considered himself to be politically pro-choice:

“I’m pro-choice but against abortion because I’m an illegitimate child myself and it would be hypocritical to take any other position. I’d be dead. I wouldn’t exist,” the star and director of “The Two Jakes” said in a Washington Post interview.

“And I have nothing but total admiration, gratitude and respect for the strength of the women who made the decision they made in my individual case. But as I say, I believe this is the choice of the woman and, you know, I walk it like I talk it.” Nicholson was 38 when he learned that his “mother” was really his grandmother and that the woman he had known as his sister was in fact his mother.

While Jack Nicholson did say that he was “positively against” abortion, his comment was made decades ago and doesn’t fully address the actor’s more nuanced views on the subject.

I appreciate that Jack has a view on abortion that is "nuanced."  There are pro-lifers who feel that the Church's teachings on abortion aren't sufficiently absolute (insofar as rare exceptions to the rule are contemplated).

My point, though, is that to the extent Jack is "against abortion," that opposition does not appear to come by way of religious conviction.  Instead, his personal opposition is based on his own parentage, and that he is only alive because his mother did not abort him.

Opposition to elective abortion is not a per se religious issue.  There are plenty of religionists who support it (including, sadly, some in the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Based on the Supreme Court ruling about the Texas abortion bounty law I am changing my prediction. I now think it is more likely Roe v Wade dies completely in the coming year.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Based on the Supreme Court ruling about the Texas abortion bounty law I am changing my prediction. I now think it is more likely Roe v Wade dies completely in the coming year.

Question:  can they sue in the case of a mother who went to a state where abortion is legal if the mother or anyone involved is a resident of Texas?  Or do the providers or others who assisted the mother have to be located in Texas?

Is it technically a bounty if one is getting damages in a suit rather than a reward for ‘catching’ someone?  Can someone unconnected to the child sue just because they know or do they have to show loss of the baby affects them personally? (I am reading they don’t have to prove damages, which makes absolutely no sense to me and is a major problem if true)

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/10/texas-abortion-law-ban-enforcement/

Added:  if this becomes legal for abortion, what is the rational to prevent it from being legal over anything?  And if it actually became popular, could Texas courts handle the increase in lawsuits?

Edited December 12, 2021 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:29 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I am trying to extradite myself from the thread, I will merely add that one such individual in the Book of Mormon experienced just this. It changed him. He repented. His name was Alma. And he described his experience as “endless torment”. 
 

This and D&C 19 were exactly what I had in mind when I made my post. This is a Latter-day Saint board. I had no idea I was making a controversial post. I thought the relevant reference was obvious. 
 

What does “endless torment” entail? Heck if I know. I don’t believe in it. But when I did I certainly thought it would be way worse than a few years in jail (which sounds like being beaten by a few stripes). 
 

And again for everyone here, I recommend Peck’s a short stay in hell. It’s a great read. It’s written by a Latter-day Saint. Loved it as a member and still love it as a former member. 

You will be the one tormenting yourself.