Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My daughter’s fertility clinic in Texas just informed her that, according to Texas’ “trigger” law, not using all of her frozen embryos may be considered a felony. Whatever your stance on abortion, these no abortions/no exceptions laws are insane. Yet that’s where we are. 

Scary

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

We'll see, I suppose.

California is likely going to pass a bill into law that may very well legalize infanticide.  Both sides of this issue can make mistakes in legislation.

One legislator's say-so is not the end of the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, you have more faith in the rationality of politicians. When they say they think life begins at conception, I’m pretty sure they mean it. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Scary

If life begins at conception, then an embryo is a person with rights the moment the sperm and egg join. Thus, under “personhood” laws, anything that prevents the growth and viability of the person is illegal: IUDs, morning-after pills, discarding of frozen embryos, and so on. 

Ever since Roe, the religious right has campaigned on life beginning at conception, which is why current laws on the books, such as personhood and trigger laws, make that explicit. And yet, we’re supposed to have faith that these politicians are going to have a change of heart and realize they have gone too far. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

When they say they think life begins at conception, I’m pretty sure they mean it. 

If anyone thinks otherwise, they don’t understand biology.  Human life does begin at conception. 

I think there are other legitimate issues to argue as to why exceptions to abortion should not be black and white, but arguing that they are not alive or are not human is not one of them.   

One study showed that over 97% of the many thousands of biologists sampled worldwide agree that human life begins at conception.  Most of those biologists also identified as liberal and pro-choice.  In other words, one can find reasons and arguments that align with biology - no need to dehumanize them.  That is one of my big annoyances with this debate.  I tire of political parties and individuals denying really solid science to match their ideology.  It is time for our arguments to grow up.  This question really is not in debate in biology.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Just now, pogi said:

If anyone thinks otherwise, they don’t understand biology.  Human life does begin at conception. 

I think there are other legitimate issues to argue as to why exceptions to abortion should not be black and white, but arguing that they are not alive or are not human is not one of them.   

One study showed that over 97% of the many thousands of biologists sampled worldwide agree that human life begins at conception.  Most of those biologists also identified as liberal and pro-choice.  In other words, one can find reasons and arguments that align with biology - no need to dehumanize them.  That is one of my big annoyances with this debate.  I tire of political parties refuting really solid science.  It is time for our arguments to grow up.  This question really is not in debate in biology.

That’s fine, but I hope you understand the implications of defining sperm and egg together as a human life with inherent rights. That is the issue. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s fine, but I hope you understand the implications of defining sperm and egg together as a human life with inherent rights. That is the issue. 

Then let’s deal with those issues.  No need to re-write biology to match our political ideologies. That is backwards.  The law should be more amendable to our ideologies than biology.

I am more concerned about the implications of allowing politics to amend science for ideological purposes.  Remember Covid?  This is science denying all over again.   Again, that is backwards.  It should be biology/science that is influencing politics.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not rewriting biology. I’m just saying that insisting an embryo is a person with inherent rights is an ideological position, not a biological or scientific question. 

If, for example, my daughter’s unused embryos have a right to be born, does this mean she should be forced to undergo transfers and carry all of them to term? Apparently several state legislatures believe so. 

If you are trying to argue that human life does not begin at conception, than you absolutely are trying to rewrite biology for political purposes.  Lets leave "rights" out of it for now.  That has nothing to do with biology, and those are the issues that should be debated, not the biology.

It certainly looks like you are rewriting biology to me:

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, you have more faith in the rationality of politicians. When they say they think life begins at conception, I’m pretty sure they mean it. 

It sounds like you are implying that they are irrational for suggesting that life begins at conception to me. 

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And yet, we’re supposed to have faith that these politicians are going to have a change of heart and realize they have gone too far. 

Again, it sounds like you are implying they are wrong for saying that life begins at conception.  Are you not?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rpn said:

Baptisms aren't required for children who die before age 8 in our theology, and although I'm aware of a number of such cases done by proxy for dead people, I don't know that they are actually needed anyway.   So there is nothing at all inconsistent with stillborn children not having temple ordinances done, even if they are and will be resurrected having fulfilled the measure of creation.

There is a lot more to temple work than just baptism. No temple work is being done for that stillborn. Their name is not recorded in the church and they are not listed as having been born or died. 

Currently from a genealogical prospective they simple didn’t exists.

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

I am not disputing that at all. The pertinent question is whether an embryo is a person with rights at the moment of conception. The biological definition of when life begins is irrelevant. This is an ideological question, not a scientific issue. 

I am glad to see that you agree that we are talking about real live human beings here.  I personally don't see how or why that would be irrelevant to the discussion of rights.  Should an embryo have equal rights in all ways to a more developed fetus?  I think there is some room for discussion there.  I think there are good reasons to suggest that it shouldn't be entirely black and white and why exceptions should be made.   That is what we should be discussing, and the fact that they are living human beings is a critical factor that should have some influence our way forward. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But writing an article about actual children who would make the world a better place by not existing is not an argument against the old male politicians.  It just sounds like extremism from the other side of the isle.

If ever there was a legitimate time to apply Godwin's law..

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

There is a lot more to temple work than just baptism. No temple work is being done for that stillborn. Their name is not recorded in the church and they are not listed as having been born or died. 

Currently from a genealogical prospective they simple didn’t exists.

My point is that children who are not accountable don't NEED any of the saving ordinances.   And you can bet they are not forgotten by their parents, whether or not such parents record them on family group sheets or otherwise.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem is that several state legislatures have decreed that an embryo has rights that outweigh the mother’s right to decide whether or not to carry the child. As I mentioned, this directly affects my daughter. And I don’t see legislators in places like Oklahoma and Texas being particularly interested in gray areas and exceptions.

There are problems on the opposite extreme of the spectrum too.  I am not arguing that either is right, I am arguing that the other human life which is often ignored or dehumanized needs to be a serious consideration in the discussion. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When my mother was pregnant with me, she had some complications, and her doctor advised her to have an abortion. He told her she was unlikely to carry me to term, and if she did, I might well have serious birth defects. Obviously she didn’t have an abortion. I was born with a significant birth defect that required major surgery and an overnight stay in the hospital at least once a week until I was 5.

Am I glad she didn’t have an abortion? Absolutely. But it was her decision, not the government’s nor anyone else’s. As I said before, these kinds of decisions are best left to the mother, not to legislators and prosecutors. 

Sometimes they are, I agree.  Always?  I don't know.  

It is kind of frightening the number of mothers who have been told their children would be born with significant disabilities and then they weren't.  I personally know one whose child did not have the connection between the left and right hemispheres of the brain.  The list of reasons that the doctor gave for termination was very long, and "no quality of life, never walk, never talk, etc." was at the top.  The issue wasn't discovered until the 20 week scan so the baby was solidly in the 2nd trimester when it all came to a head.  My friend decided not to terminate and that "baby" is now 8 or 9 and perfectly fine.  You wouldn't even know there was anything wrong to see him in action. 

I'm sure children, children that were very much wanted, that would have been just fine have been aborted because the mother the believed the doctor who told her they wouldn't.  

I don't say that to be against the mother or the doctor, or to argue issues of legality.  It's just a sad reality of this kind of stuff that I think we like to pretend doesn't exist.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, rpn said:

My point is that children who are not accountable don't NEED any of the saving ordinances.   And you can bet they are not forgotten by their parents, whether or not such parents record them on family group sheets or otherwise.  

Never said they were forgot by the parents. But it may also mean they will not be part of that family’s eternal group.

We don’t know when Heavenly Father determines when a soul begins, thus fulling the need for all his children to have the chance to experience morality. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2022 at 8:09 PM, pogi said:

To help you understand that I am not outside of biological consensus on this issue, I am going to have to ask for a CFR for any biology paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal that distinguishes humans from human beings.  If you can find one that identifies an organism called a "human becoming" (which implies they are not yet human BTW) then you get bonus points.   If you ask pretty much any biologist if all humans are human beings, they are going to look at you weird for even asking.  If one is fully human then how are they not a human being, but only a human becoming?  I am not the one cherry picking here.  It is pro-choices who are neglecting biological nomenclature to fit their ideological assumptions - because they don't want to admit that they are actually killing human-beings.   These ideas have no basis in biology - and that is my problem with pro-choice arguments such as yours.  It simply is not consistent with biological consensus.  

I have the cfr in pics on my cell phone...I'll add them in a minute. I would note that I'm not really expecting you to be satisfied with them. If you aren't, that's not my problem anymore, I would prefer not to go in circles on this. Finding ones that were open enough to share any significant quote was a pain in the butt. Mainly because my stance is that what makes a human being a complete human being isn't settled science. Proving a negative is harder...especially when that negative is basically that this isnt an area of simply science but a mesh of science, law, and philosophy/theology. Also, I'm not personalizing cherry-picking as an individual stance, but one I've seen repeated in multiple pro-life sources period. And I would say there is a reason that several medical organizations most linked to pregnancy are against the current decision. 
the first three is from the textbook of perinatal medicine. (Referencing below) Green are relevant quotes indicating that this is not an issue of merely science. Yellow is the part where they use the word “potential” in connection to human life…which is probably as close as I’ll get to winning the bonus points on a term I made up on the fly. The last is a summary of another research article in a series of articles I think. Also saying that this is a) not settled science and b) not something that can be derived solely from science. They both distinguished “human life” in general and what constitutes a human being. 
 

Also this  for the reference to several organizations supporting abortion access to the supreme court: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-supreme-court-should-know-about-abortion-care/?amp=true

 

extra edit: this is a book that came up on google scholar from the mid 90’s. It highlights a variety of views from varying professional perspectives indicating the wide range of assumptions and intellectual theories surround the start of life and the ethical areas surrounding it. It’s likely not scientifically up to date, but many are base theories/views I’ve seen floated in things like the article I gave you a whole back: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-015-8257-5

On 5/6/2022 at 8:09 PM, pogi said:

You say that these humans are not human beings, as if this is a given in biology.  

No, you're misreading me. I'm saying there isn't a biological consensus, that it's not something that can be figured out simply by a DNA swab but is dependent on several different fields of study and philosophical/theological interpretation. My personal assumption, based on both science, personal experience, and current theories leans to brain development and/or viability as the line for personhood.   

 

On 5/6/2022 at 8:09 PM, pogi said:

Again:

 

Also of interest to note that:

  Quote

The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%).

So, this opinion clearly is not a politically biased one and not persuaded by values.  

If you are not willing to acknowledge biological consensus on this subject, than I guess we have nothing more to discuss.  

Repeating yourself does not make the gaping problems with this research go away. If anything this stat should give pause to question whether the significance and definition of "life" are the same for both researcher and scientists that answered. If everyone assumed life to have the same meaning/signifance that you do I assure you all but the most sociopathic would also be "pro-life." But most don't....in or out of the scientific/medical world. 

 

With luv,

BD

12F72F06-5ED4-4731-8AD5-9E54AB4B0402.jpeg

6E4694E6-F5B1-4EE5-BBBE-58A827622355.jpeg

82CF9E10-6545-43BA-A12E-22A8DE09772A.jpeg

71ADF9E0-3724-4106-A345-3DC4F6E71F78.png

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I have told the Pre-birth story of a young unwed mother who was struggling with the decision about whether to have the baby who reported a visit from her unborn child who said, "You've to make up your mind one way or the other because I am supposed to get to a particular family and if you don't do it I have to make other arrangements."

One of the striking things about that story is the consideration regarding the choice.  And that other arrangements can enter in. There is opposition in all things and that by "Proving contrarities truth is made manifest."  It follows that by suppressing contrarities, ideology is made manifest.

One thing I notice about legal abortion is that nothing about legality makes it compulsory. That distinguishes it from rape, for instance, where compulsion is the defining characteristic.  Rather, the person on whom the responsibility most heavily weighs gets to weigh in.  And they might even seek and obtain divine guidance.

I think about how priesthood authority works without compulsory means.  I think about the recent headline about the Taliban announcing head to toe clothing for women.  The Taliban, like those who enforce female circumcision, justify themselves as doing it to protect women from the consequences of poor life choices. The restrictions, the ritualized mutilation, is supposedly, a protection.  And if such situatutions involves mutilation of innocence, and/or the threat of violence or prison, the alternative is to allow imperfect people to choose for themselves. Even victims of rape might not do or think exactly what we want, which, it goes without saying, must be what God wants and is therefore, beyond the possibility of question or debate.  Thinking in absolutes for rather than proving contraries that consider specific circumstances.

Persuasion, gentleness, long suffering, meekness, and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile are nice in theory, but the threat of prison or the death penalty, is much more reliable in getting people to conform.  Is the first and great commandment love or conformity?  A contracted soul means not having to consider how different another's life and experience might be.  

I think about Benjamin talking about not trying to run faster than one has the strength.  My wife worked in ICN and labor and delivery for nearly 40 years, and had two difficult and dangerous pregnancies that left permanent physical changes on her body.  She says she would not personally have an abortion, nor help with one, but does not believe it should be illegal.  She has seen way too much, a wide range of difficult circumstances to favor one choice for all people everywhere. Particularly when those making and enforcing that choice don't carry or feel the responsibilities and consequences. And prefer that all those babies and mothers not be a burden on taxpayers because that might lead to Venezualan styled socialism.  Rather, lift yourself up by your bootstraps.  If President Trump could rise on his own wits and big a-brain, without any help from the government, and just a few hundred million tax free from Dad, and armies of lawyers and enablers, why not them?

I think of Shauna deciding to watch 5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh to see what an in-law saw in him, and finding him sneering at unwed mothers and the notion they deserved any compassion or consideration, she got so angry she could not stand it for another second.  She's still angry.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Sunnyvale

Dang it!

Just when I think I have the answer you suggest a "contrary" to make me re-think it.  ;)

You just won't leave me alone in my dogmatism.-   HARUMPH!  😠

Thanks for that!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

But it may also mean they [ed:stillborn, miscarriages] will not be part of that family’s eternal group.

This seems like an unclear area to me. In search of clarity, I found the below quote from a 1987 Ensign article.

Quote

Church policy does permit a family to record stillborn children on their family group record if they wish to do so. If the stillbirth takes place after the sealing of the parents, those children can be identified on the record as being born in the covenant (BIC). Miscarriages, however, are not normally recorded on family group records.

I learned it's up to us whether we want to list stillborn children as BIC (for recording purposes).

As for miscarried children, they are "not normally recorded" in family history records. The article has some helpful distinction between stillborn and miscarriage; it's just after the above quote. 

Past all that is more elaboration about stillborn babies.

Quote

The question of whether stillborn children will be resurrected and belong to their parents in the hereafter is really the crux of the matter. This question is, as yet, impossible to answer with certainty. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that "there is no information given by revelation in regard to the status of stillborn children. However, I will express my personal opinion that we should have hope that these little ones will receive a resurrection and then belong to us."

This changes my understanding from Temple Ordinances Insure A Path For Everyone To Live Eternally With Their Families to - Well, Maybe Not Everyone.

The last of the article is dedicated to when souls enter bodies. It provides some avenues to reconcile the discontinuity of my previous sentence.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I have told the Pre-birth story of a young unwed mother who was struggling with the decision about whether to have the baby who reported a visit from her unborn child who said, "You've to make up your mind one way or the other because I am supposed to get to a particular family and if you don't do it I have to make other arrangements."

One of the striking things about that story is the consideration regarding the choice.  And that other arrangements can enter in. There is opposition in all things and that by "Proving contrarities truth is made manifest."  It follows that by suppressing contrarities, ideology is made manifest.

One thing I notice about legal abortion is that nothing about legality makes it compulsory. That distinguishes it from rape, for instance, where compulsion is the defining characteristic.  Rather, the person on whom the responsibility most heavily weighs gets to weigh in.  And they might even seek and obtain divine guidance.

I think about how priesthood authority works without compulsory means.  I think about the recent headline about the Taliban announcing head to toe clothing for women.  The Taliban, like those who enforce female circumcision, justify themselves as doing it to protect women from the consequences of poor life choices. The restrictions, the ritualized mutilation, is supposedly, a protection.  And if such situatutions involves mutilation of innocence, and/or the threat of violence or prison, the alternative is to allow imperfect people to choose for themselves. Even victims of rape might not do or think exactly what we want, which, it goes without saying, must be what God wants and is therefore, beyond the possibility of question or debate.  Thinking in absolutes rather than proving contraries that consider specific circumstances.

Persuasion, gentleness, long suffering, meekness, and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile are nice in theory, but the threat of prison or the death penalty, is much more reliable in getting people to conform.  Is the first and great commandment love or conformity?  A contracted soul means not having to consider how different another's life and experience might be.  

I think about Benjamin talking about not trying to run faster than one has the strength.  My wife worked in ICN and labor and delivery for nearly 40 years, and had two difficult and dangerous pregnancies that left permanent physical changes on her body.  She says she would not personally have an abortion, nor help with one, but does not believe it should be illegal.  She has seen way too much, a wide range of difficult circumstances to favor one choice for all people everywhere. Particularly when those making and enforcing that choice don't carry or feel the responsibilities and consequences. And prefer that all those babies and mothers not be a burden on taxpayers because that might lead to Venezualan styled socialism.  Rather, lift yourself up by your bootstraps.  If President Trump could rise on his own wits and big a-brain, without any help from the government, and just a few hundred million tax free from Dad, and armies of lawyers and enablers, why not them?

I think of Shauna deciding to watch 5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh to see what an in-law saw in him, and finding him sneering at unwed mothers and the notion they deserved any compassion or consideration, she got so angry she could not stand it for another second.  She's still angry.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Sunnyvale

Thank you for this. I live in Texas and all that keeps going through my mind is that we are getting close to a Texas style of Sharia law, and it is scary.

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment

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...