webbles Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, kimpearson said: States shouldn't decide any issue that crosses boarders. If one state outlaws an action that a citizen of that state can simply go to another state to perform legally, it is a national issue and you are kidding yourself if you think that won't happen. This happens a lot. In Utah it is illegal to gamble, so people cross the border to do that. In some states, it is against the law to use marijuana, so people cross the border to do that. In some states, certain marriages aren't legal (such as cousin marriages, under-age marriages, etc) and people cross the border to do that. People cross the border because of sales tax, food prices, etc. Some states allow assisted suicide and people cross borders for that. It even affects abortion now because states have different rules around abortion (not including the recent Texas law) and people cross borders. 3
webbles Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, Tacenda said: But the poor women in Texas have already had to endure trials over the new bill. https://www.thelily.com/the-texas-abortion-ban-has-a-medical-exception-but-some-doctors-worry-its-too-narrow-to-use/ This is one of the reasons I'm actually pro-overturning Roe. I don't really like how this Texas law works but the only reason it exists is because of Roe. If Row gets overturned, then this law can go away and Texas (and other states) can have better discussion over abortion. Another reason I'm pro-overturning Roe is that it has had an unintended side affect of reducing the research into life-saving devices for premature babies. Since Casey ruled that viability is the limit for abortion, anything that pushes viability back hurts the pro-abortion cause. So creating a device that would help 20 week babies, 15 week babies, etc is anti-abortion and has a hard time getting funding and people because it would push back the viability date and allow abortion at earlier weeks. 4
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Duncan said: when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything Speaking for yourself, that's fine. But don't impute such an ugly sentiment to me, as I reject it. 19 minutes ago, Duncan said: because it doesn't follow US legal procedure. What are you talking about? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Tacenda said: But the poor women in Texas have already had to endure trials over the new bill. https://www.thelily.com/the-texas-abortion-ban-has-a-medical-exception-but-some-doctors-worry-its-too-narrow-to-use/ Meanwhile, any thought to what the babies are "endur{ing}"? That would be, for almost all of them, . . . deliberate and elective killing of them in utero? At some point we need to address the personhood of the babies, as we did with those held in slavery. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97 4
california boy Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 From a doctrinal point of view, I am curious. When does someone who opposes abortion believe the spirit enters the body? Does every person require a body and a spirit to be a person? If combining the spirit and body prior to birth, and the spirit/body are murdered, does that spirit never even gets to be born? Will the spirit be assigned a different body? Or are they so special, they will go directly to the Celestial Kingdom. And if that is the case, is that a bad thing to abort a spirit/body? Just wondering how anti-abortion all fits in with the Plan of Salvation. Can anyone answer these questions? If not, then isn't it totally speculation on whether it is murder or not? It certainly is not considered murder when something is not alive yet. 1
Duncan Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: Speaking for yourself, that's fine. But don't impute such an ugly sentiment to me, as I reject it. What are you talking about? Thanks, -Smac Then don't say ugly things and people won't impute things you say to yourself uh this is the article about US legal procedures https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/abortion-law-exceptions-rape-and-incest/620812/ apparently some US states are squeezing out exceptions, which hey not everyone lives in the US, it's a big world out there. I keep forgetting though the US is the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to human experience, my mistake 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Popular Post Posted December 2, 2021 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: States shouldn't decide any issue that crosses boarders. They don't. Each state governs what happens within its borders. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: If one state outlaws an action that a citizen of that state can simply go to another state to perform legally, it is a national issue and you are kidding yourself if you think that won't happen. I'm aware. So what? There are all sorts of things that people cross state lines to do. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I don't believe in unlimited states rights in a nation such as ours. Nobody is talking about "unlimited states rights." 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: You seem to desire to see the nation burn to enforce beliefs based on your religion rather than the will of the people and a stable nation. First, please don't personalize the thread. Second, please don't impute such falsehoods onto me. Third, I previously noted, and you ignored, that the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. Fourth, I think we can and should undo great evils, even when they are widespread and difficult to eradicate. We did it with slavery. We can do it with elective abortions. Fifth, you are not addressing the personhood of the babies. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Listen to your church leaders. Listen to what they are saying. I have. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The peace and preservation of the nation is more important than imposing your religious beliefs on others if the majority feel otherwise. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Work for a federal law banning abortion if that is what you believe is best for our nation. I don't. I don't think it's feasible. So we work with what we've got. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: We should be working to provide help to those that seek abortions so that they might choose not to. Sure. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: We shouldn't be working to put women in jail. Agreed. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Also, I hear no discussion from you about the man that got the woman pregnant. What is it you want to discuss? 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Does the man get off free with no legal punishment in your world. Legal punishment for what? 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Your sure seem ready to throw women in jail under your beliefs. Again with the imputed falsehoods. Please stop it. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Why aren't you advocating for the man that got the woman pregnant who seeks an abortion from going to jail if there is an abortion? What is the actus reus that you believe is criminal? 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Just remember, if you ban legal abortion in a world that doesn't hold your religious beliefs, then you are saying you want to treat women who have abortions as killers and put them in jail. Again with the imputed falsehoods. Please stop it. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I really doubt that is what God wants. I really doubt he wants babies electively killed. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: From my study He wants us to teach the world His gospel through example as well as proselyting by the means suggested on D&C 4 which says nothing about putting people in jail who don't follow your religious beliefs. Again with the imputed falsehoods. Please stop it. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Even the Church supports forgiveness to those who had abortions before and after baptism per the handbook. So do I. But forgiveness necessarily implicates . . . wrongdoing. And in any event, abortion is not a per se religious issue. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Quote Quote I believe this issue is similar to prohibition, if a significant part of the country wants something legal, then it should be legal. If that "something" was slavery, would you still say this? After all, "a significant part of the country" wanted to keep it "legal." Yes if the will of the majority of the nation was for slavery. Words fail me. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Once again, look at the Church you believe in. Did it ever fight against slavery prior to the civil war? In some ways, yes. In other ways, it tolerated/allowed it. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Which side did it choose? The one that preserved the nation. The Union. The side that was seeking to end the institution of slavery. The institution that you just said you are okay with provided that "the will of the majority of the nation" is for it. Again, words fail me. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: What did the Church do with civil rights for blacks? The Church was not a governmental institution. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Followed the will of the people until that will changed. Okay. So why not work to change the will of the people? Why instead relegate the issue of abortion to be decided by a bare majority of nine unelected-and-appointed-for-life justices on the U.S. Supreme Court? Why not let the states decide? 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: If the majority of the nation still supported limiting the rights of blacks, do you really think the Church would have changed its stance on blacks and the priesthood. I think the Church, like the rest of society, had to grow and mature as pertaining to its treatment of our black brothers and sisters. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The Church followed the will of the nation when it came to polygamy. I encourage you to read the Manifesto. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The Church follows the will of communist nations, nations with national religions and every other type of government. Yes. The Church disclaims civil authority. I think that's a good thing. 27 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The Church has never favored enforcing its religious beliefs over the law of the land. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. Thanks, -Smac 6
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Duncan said: Quote Quote when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything Speaking for yourself, that's fine. But don't impute such an ugly sentiment to me, as I reject it. Then don't say ugly things and people won't impute things you say to yourself I didn't say "when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything." You did. You were apparently imputing that idea onto me. That is a falsehood. Please don't do that. Yep. 1 hour ago, Duncan said: uh this is the article about US legal procedures https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/abortion-law-exceptions-rape-and-incest/620812/ apparently some US states are squeezing out exceptions, which hey not everyone lives in the US, it's a big world out there. I keep forgetting though the US is the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to human experience, my mistake Still not sure what you're talking about. I find it . . . illuminating that you are reducing yourself to rebutting my position by substantially distorting and misrepresenting it. It's not a good look. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97 3
webbles Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, california boy said: From a doctrinal point of view, I am curious. When does someone who opposes abortion believe the spirit enters the body? Does every person require a body and a spirit to be a person? If combining the spirit and body prior to birth, and the spirit/body are murdered, does that spirit never even gets to be born? Will the spirit be assigned a different body? Or are they so special, they will go directly to the Celestial Kingdom. And if that is the case, is that a bad thing to abort a spirit/body? Just wondering how anti-abortion all fits in with the Plan of Salvation. Can anyone answer these questions? If not, then isn't it totally speculation on whether it is murder or not? It certainly is not considered murder when something is not alive yet. I've heard lots of different answers. I've heard that it happens at conception, quickening, viability, or even a few weeks after birth. I'm just grateful that it is outside of my pay grade 4
OGHoosier Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Duncan said: I keep forgetting though the US is the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to human experience, my mistake This is about an issue of US law within the United States. Whatever justification you may have had for getting worked up about the US's intentions over in the Finland pastor thread, it no longer applies here. You raised an example in order to argue against a legal principle in the abstract. You cannot demand that we refrain from commenting on your example because the subject of your example is not American. Edited December 2, 2021 by OGHoosier 4
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 34 minutes ago, california boy said: From a doctrinal point of view, I am curious. When does someone who opposes abortion believe the spirit enters the body? AFAIK, we have not been given this information. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Does every person require a body and a spirit to be a person? I don't understand the question. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: If combining the spirit and body prior to birth, and the spirit/body are murdered, does that spirit never even gets to be born? A spirit cannot be "murdered." I don't understand this question. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Will the spirit be assigned a different body? According to Douglass Stewart and Lex de Azevedo, yes. But I doubt it. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Or are they so special, they will go directly to the Celestial Kingdom. Well, we have D&C 137. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: And if that is the case, is that a bad thing to abort a spirit/body? Deliberately killing an innocent person, particularly a baby, is a bad thing. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Just wondering how anti-abortion all fits in with the Plan of Salvation. No need to wonder, really. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: Can anyone answer these questions? Mostly, no. 34 minutes ago, california boy said: If not, then isn't it totally speculation on whether it is murder or not? "Murder" is a bit too specific, and goes beyond what the Brethren have said, and in fact seems to conflict with what they have said. From April 1973: Quote As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church: “As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.” This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin. So the Church does not appear to draw a one-to-one correlation between abortion and murder. That said, D&C 59:6 is plainly relevant: "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. Also 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. I am also persuaded by Terryl Givens' 2020 essay: A Latter-day Saint Defense of the Unborn 34 minutes ago, california boy said: It certainly is not considered murder when something is not alive yet. But a fetus is alive. Thanks, -Smac 3
california boy Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 30 minutes ago, webbles said: I've heard lots of different answers. I've heard that it happens at conception, quickening, viability, or even a few weeks after birth. I'm just grateful that it is outside of my pay grade Thanks for your thoughts.
california boy Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: AFAIK, we have not been given this information. I don't understand the question. A spirit cannot be "murdered." I don't understand this question. According to Douglass Stewart and Lex de Azevedo, yes. But I doubt it. Well, we have D&C 137. Deliberately killing an innocent person, particularly a baby, is a bad thing. No need to wonder, really. Mostly, no. "Murder" is a bit too specific, and goes beyond what the Brethren have said, and in fact seems to conflict with what they have said. From April 1973: So the Church does not appear to draw a one-to-one correlation between abortion and murder. That said, D&C 59:6 is plainly relevant: "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. Also consider these statements by then-Elder Rusell M. Nelson in 1985: I am persuaded by these words. I am also persuaded by Terryl Givens' 2020 essay: A Latter-day Saint Defense of the Unborn But a fetus is alive. Thanks, -Smac How about simply saying I don't have answers to any of your question. Because all the rest of your blah blah blah has nothing to do with what I actually asked. 3
kimpearson Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, any thought to what the babies are "endur{ing}"? That would be, for almost all of them, . . . deliberate and elective killing of them in utero? At some point we need to address the personhood of the babies, as we did with those held in slavery. Thanks, -Smac Just some food for thought. If those babies are considered alive by God with a spirit in them (which could well be the case), why are you worrying so much about them over the mothers? The babies will go to the celestial kingdom without facing the trials of mortal life. That's what the Church tells mom's who lose infants to death. That is the doctrinal belief of the Church. So explain in detail the overall harm done to the baby. You can't have one part of our religious doctrine while ignoring another part. Abortion is all about the mom. The sin in God's eye's is the reason for the abortion not the abortion itself. Just like killing someone can be murder, self defense or following a commandment from God. I personally never want to be the judge of why a woman has an abortion. I will leave that in God's hands and hope to improve the cultures of the world so that no one feels like they need an abortion except in the case of preserving a mom's life.
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Just some food for thought. If those babies are considered alive by God with a spirit in them (which could well be the case), why are you worrying so much about them over the mothers? Worrying about babies getting electively killed? Legally? 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The babies will go to the celestial kingdom without facing the trials of mortal life. That's what the Church tells mom's who lose infants to death. That is the doctrinal belief of the Church. Yes. And? By your reasoning, we all ought to go around murdering babies and children. Right? 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: So explain in detail the overall harm done to the baby. They have been killed. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: You can't have one part of our religious doctrine while ignoring another part. I'm not ignoring anything. I am, however, aghast at the seeming depravity of thought inherent in musing about seeing no "harm done" in electively killing a baby or a child. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Abortion is all about the mom. And the child. Strange that I have to actually say that. Out loud. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: The sin in God's eye's is the reason for the abortion not the abortion itself. 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." Also consider these statements by then-Elder Rusell M. Nelson in 1985: Quote 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.” Frankly, you seem to be just making things up as you go along. Either that or you are playing the provocateur. Neither approach is helpful or persuasive. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Just like killing someone can be murder, self defense or following a commandment from God. Elective abortions are not really comparable to "self defense." And the "commandment from God" is to neither "kill" nor "do anything like unto it." (D&C 59:6.) 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I personally never want to be the judge of why a woman has an abortion. Women are generally capable of explaining their own motivations. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: I will leave that in God's hands In the end, yes. Meanwhile, I think we can and ought to pass laws to protect the innocent. 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: and hope to improve the cultures of the world so that no one feels like they need an abortion except in the case of preserving a mom's life. Finally something we can agree on! Thanks, -Smac Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97 4
kimpearson Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 49 minutes ago, smac97 said: Again with the imputed falsehoods. Please stop it. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. 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".
smac97 Posted December 2, 2021 Author Posted December 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Quote Again with the imputed falsehoods. Please stop it. Again, even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue. No falsehoods Lots of falsehoods. Lots. 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: just an understanding from all your various posts of your feelings. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. You are misrepresenting what I think. Over and over and over. 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: How can you say this is not a religious issue? Gadzooks! I said seven times that "the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue." Did you read the link? And why are you omitting "per se" when you paraphrase me? Please stop distorting and misrepresenting what I am saying. 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: 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. And yet the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue: Quote 10:31 a.m. Justice Samuel Alito questions Stewart regarding the idea that being pro-life is a religious view only, and asks if any secular bioethicists believe life exists prior to viability. "It's not tied to a religious view," says Stewart, who said that there are a host of secular people who have differing views on when life begins. Once more, with feeling: "Justice Samuel Alito questions Stewart regarding the idea that being pro-life is a religious view only, and asks if any secular bioethicists believe life exists prior to viability." "{T}here are a host of secular people who have differing views on when life begins." See also here: Quote Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a pointed question for Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart about what’s motivating the state's abortion restrictions. “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” “The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?” she continued. I am not saying that abortion is not a religious issue. I am saying it is not solely a religious issue. 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Why does this court need to overturn what a previous court ruled on? Perhaps for the same or similar reasons SCOTUS needed to overturn Dred Scott? 2 minutes ago, kimpearson said: 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". You could start here: Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion Broadly speaking, my views align with the Church's. Thanks, -Smac 3
Calm Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 1 hour ago, kimpearson said: If those babies are considered alive by God with a spirit in them (which could well be the case), why are you worrying so much about them over the mothers? Wouldn’t helping mothers not commit a severe transgression be a good thing? 3
Calm Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, kimpearson said: How can you say this is not a religious issue? I have heard atheists argue against abortion because they see it as a form of eugenics or a campaign against minorities and the poor. 11% of atheists believe it should be illegal or mostly illegal. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/ Edited December 2, 2021 by Calm 2
Duncan Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: This is about an issue of US law within the United States. Whatever justification you may have had for getting worked up about the US's intentions over in the Finland pastor thread, it no longer applies here. You raised an example in order to argue against a legal principle in the abstract. You cannot demand that we refrain from commenting on your example because the subject of your example is not American. actually it was an American case but whatever right? They live here now for obvious reasons, people do move Edited December 2, 2021 by Duncan
Duncan Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I didn't say "when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything." You did. You were apparently imputing that idea onto me. That is a falsehood. Please don't do that. Yep. Still not sure what you're talking about. I find it . . . illuminating that you are reducing yourself to rebutting my position by substantially distorting and misrepresenting it. It's not a good look. Thanks, -Smac it's your "argument from the margins" bit you pride yourself on your intelligence you'll figure it out🙂
BRMC Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 10 hours ago, bluebell said: It might be easier for you to suggest what you would consider to be an except to the 'it should always be illegal' perspective. I couldn't guess what you would see as a situation where the life of the mother should be saved over the life of the baby. It's a hard topic, no matter what situation we are talking about. If someone's life is in jeopardy, and that person has people or other children who love them and also depend on them for their care, then there are no simple answers, no matter what the belief is. As I stated, I can't think of any exceptions. That's why I asked for specific examples.
BRMC Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 7 hours ago, Duncan said: I'll give you a real situation. A Mom carrying twins and things were fine up until the day of delivery. Well, one of the twins died and as we know bodies start to decompose within a short while and when that happens the toxins can afflict the other baby and the mother. In this case that was happening and the mother actually called her bishop and she thought she would be exed from the church because they had to terminate the other baby or all could die. The Bishop told her of all things you are worrying about right now being excommunicated shouldn't be one of them and it's sad that someone would think of church discipline when you are in the swirl of emotions and everything but anyways, both babies died and the mother lived. Life isn't black or white and if you make it illegal to get a late term abortion this poor woman could face a jail penalty for something out of her control, I think that's morally wrong. On the day of delivery? Then I believe you deliver the child.
Duncan Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 24 minutes ago, BRMC said: On the day of delivery? Then I believe you deliver the child. all in the day of delivery, well she couldn't and both died due the other's death. One died on its own and the other had to be terminated sadly
BRMC Posted December 2, 2021 Posted December 2, 2021 49 minutes ago, Duncan said: all in the day of delivery, well she couldn't and both died due the other's death. One died on its own and the other had to be terminated sadly This is the part that makes zero sense to me. A baby at 9 months must be delivered, dead or alive. That delivery is surgical or natural. In either case, why must the baby be killed first? 2
Recommended Posts