Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[provoman]

50 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Several states have recently passed laws and don’t allow exception for rape, incests, etc.

If you are a member and live in one of those states you don’t have the option to follow the churches position and guidance on this issue. If you council with leadership and pray and the answer is not to continue with the pregnancy, to bad so sad for you.

That infringes on that female member’s religious beliefs and freedoms.

If these laws truly wanted to stop unwanted pregnancies they would be crafting laws that puts the male (50%) in a situation that causes him to have physical repercussions as well. Example: make him impotent for a certain period of time. Etc. 
Pass those kinds of laws and you will finally see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies and abortions. 

Until then you create a system where on side plays while the other side pays.

 

In Texas a Satanic Temple group has filed suit under Religious freedom regarding abortion.

[The Nehor]

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Since the debate ultimately rests on moral intuition, and since such intuitions are not primarily derived through reason, there is likely never going to be an easy solution to this problem. Probably the best thing we can do is understand why the problem exists, why it is not something that debate alone will solve, why each side has justifiable arguments if their intuitions are correct, and why we should do everything we can to not dehumanize the opposition and cause even more controversy than is needed. 

Fiery rhetoric that paints the opposition as baby killers or women oppressors isn't helping. 

We have spoken before, and thanks for this.

Yes, you are right and I will take it to heart.  Thanks for showing me the other side of my own coin.

You guys are doing amazing things

Edited May 4, 2022 by mfbukowski

[provoman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So sad that we cannot come out and say what it is- killing millions of babies, thousands of which might have changed the world for good

 

Except, look at US States with restrictive abortion laws AND then look at poverty level of those States and/or social services provided to families. If States were so concerned about babies changing the world, there would be near universal pre and post natal health care.

Utah is set to have in place a restrive abortion law….and the State of Utah cares so much about babies growing up and changing the world, that Utah does not offer all day kindergarten except in very limited circumstances.

Talk by States about innocence and care of human being, falls so empty because then only actions those States take is to restrict abortion and withhold necessary services.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So sad that we cannot come out and say what it is- killing millions of babies, thousands of which might have changed the world for good

 

What about the church's stance, do they just want to kill babies?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Except, look at US States with restrictive abortion laws AND then look at poverty level of those States and/or social services provided to families. If States were so concerned about babies changing the world, there would be near universal pre and post natal health care.

Utah is set to have in place a restrive abortion law….and the State of Utah cares so much about babies growing up and changing the world, that Utah does not offer all day kindergarten except in very limited circumstances.

Talk by States about innocence and care of human being, falls so empty because then only actions those States take is to restrict abortion and withhold necessary services.

Bingo!

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Rowe vs Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 has proved to be a moral Trojan hose that has rapidly accelerated  America’s descent into a state of awful wickedness, on the way to fully ripened iniquity, which is the point of no return when only the harshest judgements of an offended God can set things aright again. With this nearly fifty-year process of the normalization of filicide, approximately 50% of the population of the United States now believes it’s perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for mother’s to participate in the destruction of their own sacred offspring, with either spiritual death or broken hearts inevitably following in the wake.

I refer to Rowe vs Wade as a moral Trojan horse because once a child of God has been convinced that the destruction of their own children is morally acceptable, the acceptance and normalization of other lesser forms of wickedness become much easier to embrace. What’s a little sexual promiscuity, adultery, slandering, bearing of false witness, cheating, stealing or physically attacking perceived enemies when one already accepts that the sin of murder can be embraced as a virtue. In addition, the adherents to this modern death cult of Moloch will  quite naturally be filled with blinding hate and rage toward those who oppose them, and because they have already normalized that which is tantamount to murder, there’s a very good chance the death cultists will also inevitably attempt to destroy the lives of those who believe human life is sacred because they no longer want such people around to vex and torment their damaged consciences.

The stage is now being set for the forewarned total destruction of the United States. And, sadly, it appears not a few members of the Church are either going to be beguiled into apologizing for or making common cause with the tmodern-day Gadianton robbers, prophesied by Moroni,  who will soon gain near sole control of the nation’s judgement seats through their diabolical treachery and the employment of murder as an acceptable tool of perverted statecraft.

But in spite of all this believers should take heart because the scriptures abundantly testify that Zion will not triumph until the iBabylon the Great is destroyed, when, in one of the greatest ironies of human history,  Babylon’s haughty inhabitants fall into the very pit they are  now digging for the destruction of the righteous. 

shouldn't you on a ledge somewhere?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

Several states have recently passed laws and don’t allow exception for rape, incests, etc.

I disagree with those laws.  And those laws can be changed.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

If you are a member and live in one of those states you don’t have the option to follow the churches position and guidance on this issue.

Okay.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

If you council with leadership and pray and the answer is not to continue with the pregnancy, to bad so sad for you.

Flippancy is not helpful here.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

That infringes on that female member’s religious beliefs and freedoms.

That would be an interesting legal argument to make.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

If these laws truly wanted to stop unwanted pregnancies

I think the objective is to reduce the number of children being killed in utero.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

they would be crafting laws that puts the male (50%) in a situation that causes him to have physical repercussions as well.

Example: make him impotent for a certain period of time. Etc. 
Pass those kinds of laws and you will finally see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies and abortions. 

I invite you to consider the constitutional ramifications of such a proposal.

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

Until then you create a system where on side plays while the other side pays.

Recent absurd notions to the contrary notwithstanding, men cannot become pregnant.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, mtomm said:

You realize that women had abortions before Roe V Wade, right? I mean they didn't start getting them after the decision to make them legally accessible. All Roe did was make abortions more safe and accessible. Before Roe women took chances with their health and lives. Making abortion illegal does not mean they don't happen. Much like the outlawing guns argument. You can make them less accessible but people will still find a way. And in too many cases it puts the woman's life and health at risk. 
I really don't think men (and probably a lot of women) understand how a woman thinks when she is faced with an unplanned pregnancy or devastating  news about the health of a fetus. They really aren't thinking about the destruction of the United States of America as prophesied in the Book of Mormon or about your religious beliefs at all. And they shouldn't have to. 

💯 Agree. And maybe men should be wearing condoms.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

I often look for the "therefore" in a quote or post. If I adopt the poster's position, then what would I change? Therefore, I will . . . . .  

I struggle with this post to find the therefore. Is this pastor saying that one should not advocate, or advocate less for the unborn, or that they should advocate equally or more for those with certain baggage? This quote is a little too straw-mannish for me, but I will think about it. Thanks for posting it.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So sad that we cannot come out and say what it is- killing millions of babies, thousands of which might have changed the world for good

 

Augustine thought the same thing about masturbating.

[bsjkki]

43 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

Fiery rhetoric that paints the opposition as baby killers or women oppressors isn't helping. 

But that was the whole point of the leak. The ‘outrage factory’ is in full swing. 😏 The big wigs are lighting things up quite effectively in this regard.
 

Edited May 4, 2022 by bsjkki

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Even abortions for rape, incest, and to save the mother are considered elective abortions. 

Not sure about the latter.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We can't get rid of elective abortions without doing more harm than good. 

A very debateable assertion, that.  We have electively killed tens of millions of babies since 1973.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is why the comparison doesn't hold at all.

I think it does.  There were plenty of difficulties that arose from freeing the slaves.  Huge economic, social, legal consequences all around.  But in the end, coping with such difficulties were better than the antebellum status quo, which involved the literal dehumanization of millions of black people held in enforced servitude.  It was better to recognize their humanity, free them and let them live their lives, even though doing so came at tremendous cost and difficulty, even down to the present day.

I submit that the same will hold for reducing elective abortions.  Let us recognize the humanity of these children.  Let them have a chance at life, even if doing so comes at great cost and difficulty.

I think the comparison holds.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And also why I don't agree that legislating this into anything useful or moral is doable in our political system.

I think it is.  Ethics/morals are baked into many of our laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Ragerunner]

27 minutes ago, provoman said:

In Texas a Satanic Temple group has filed suit under Religious freedom regarding abortion.

I think we may very well see other religions or groups file that this infringes on their belief system. When you try and force a certain religious viewpoint onto society as a whole it usually doesn’t work out very well. History has taught us that.

In Florida they recently passed laws that allow anyone to request a library book be removed because they object to its teaching or content. Guess what just got filed last week, the remove of the Bible and any book that reference the Bible because of all the sexual content, murder, etc. Under the rules spelled out the Bible clearly does break the criteria set for.

Of course the supporters of the law are like, well we didn’t mean the Bible could be a target of this law, only books they didn’t like. Karma can be a tough pill.

The United States is designed to be a freedom of religion country, not a place where a specific religion’s teachings are to be government mandated.

I have said this before and I will continue to say it. As members of the LDS church we should be very concerned how religious zealots create laws to support their brand of religion through government. You don’t have to read much church history to see how these same tactics have been used against the church many times. We may very well wake up one morning and find we are the next target.

[Navidad]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

People worry about man affecting nature adversely while we randomly and without thought eliminate millions?

I find this a very interesting and persuasive point that I have never heard before. Well said!

[Ragerunner]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.  Ethics/morals are baked into many of our laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think most of our core laws are based on the concept that ‘your rights end where my nose begins’. If you want to call that a morality position, than I agree with you on this point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So sad that we cannot come out and say what it is- killing millions of babies, thousands of which might have changed the world for good

 

What church do you go to. Because using your definition, the church of Jesus Christ sanctions baby killing. So certainly not that one. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

What is even more convenient is to advocate for open-ended abortion.  It really simplifies everything.  1 less thing to think/worry/care about.  All of the above applies equally, with the added convenience that they remain unborn...permanently. Plus there is the bonus of being able to sleep around without thought or care for accountability towards the life that eventually almost inevitably comes from natural consequence.  

It would be interesting to compare the amount of humanitarian work and financial aid that is provided to these causes by religious pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.  Anybody want to make any bets as to which group does more?  I have my suspicions.  

Edited May 4, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

This is a keeper!

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Augustine thought the same thing about masturbating.

Well yes, Ryan reminded me of my own views on morals as being undebatable individual matters, and I saw that my own emotions on the issue got the best of my usually flawless  logic. 

So yes, I believe what I believe, Augustine not withstanding.

Odd also - or not- that my high school experience on everything was taught by Augustine fathers- seriously- boys only Catholic high school! 

I let my personal morality/emotions get the best of my philosophy.  I stand behind both but should know better than to mix them.

Even I make an occasional mistake  and don't mind to admit it on the extremely rare occasions  that I do. 

Happened before I think once or twice

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What church do you go to. Because using your definition, the church of Jesus Christ sanctions baby killing. So certainly not that one. 

Nope. There are times it is necessary, though very rare

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Nope. There are times it is necessary, though very rare

It’s necessary to murder babies? Really. I can’t think of a single instance that I would be in favor of killing a baby. Can you? 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Rowe vs Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 has proved to be a moral Trojan hose that has rapidly accelerated  America’s descent into a state of awful wickedness, on the way to fully ripened iniquity, which is the point of no return when only the harshest judgements of an offended God can set things aright again. With this nearly fifty-year process of the normalization of filicide, approximately 50% of the population of the United States now believes it’s perfectly acceptable, and even laudable, for mother’s to participate in the destruction of their own sacred offspring, with either spiritual death or broken hearts inevitably following in the wake.

I refer to Rowe vs Wade as a moral Trojan horse because once a child of God has been convinced that the destruction of their own children is morally acceptable, the acceptance and normalization of other lesser forms of wickedness become much easier to embrace. What’s a little sexual promiscuity, adultery, slandering, bearing of false witness, cheating, stealing or physically attacking perceived enemies when one already accepts that the sin of murder can be embraced as a virtue. In addition, the adherents to this modern death cult of Moloch will  quite naturally be filled with blinding hate and rage toward those who oppose them, and because they have already normalized that which is tantamount to murder, there’s a very good chance the death cultists will also inevitably attempt to destroy the lives of those who believe human life is sacred because they no longer want such people around to vex and torment their damaged consciences.

The stage is now being set for the forewarned total destruction of the United States. And, sadly, it appears not a few members of the Church are either going to be beguiled into apologizing for or making common cause with the tmodern-day Gadianton robbers, prophesied by Moroni,  who will soon gain near sole control of the nation’s judgement seats through their diabolical treachery and the employment of murder as an acceptable tool of perverted statecraft.

But in spite of all this believers should take heart because the scriptures abundantly testify that Zion will not triumph until the iBabylon the Great is destroyed, when, in one of the greatest ironies of human history,  Babylon’s haughty inhabitants fall into the very pit they are  now digging for the destruction of the righteous. 

This is a valid religious opinion.  However to many in this county do do not view the world through a conservative Christian lens, the label of awful wickedness is offensive and certainly does not promote a productive dialog.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well the fight to keep out politics was a noble one, but mostly futile, because few here actually are still believers, so sad!  "Politics" HAS taken over as a secular religion in the US, as the abortion issue shows-- it should be about killing babies ( 😭, yes I said it) but of course it is now about women's rights to kill babies, even with folks who, I would think, would be more interested in the human rights of the unborn.

Remember when we used to believe in the pre-existence, and coming to earth to be born hopefully to two loving parents?

I guess there are just a few of us brave enough to stand up for the church, left

The freedom to kill babies.

Here, advocated on this board directly and by "upvotes".  

Can't believe it.

It is really not a simple binary issue.  If it was, I would have been settled long ago.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure about the latter.

A very debateable assertion, that.  We have electively killed tens of millions of babies since 1973.

I think it does.  There were plenty of difficulties that arose from freeing the slaves.  Huge economic, social, legal consequences all around.  But in the end, coping with such difficulties were better than the antebellum status quo, which involved the literal dehumanization of millions of black people held in enforced servitude.  It was better to recognize their humanity, free them and let them live their lives, even though doing so came at tremendous cost and difficulty, even down to the present day.

I submit that the same will hold for reducing elective abortions.  Let us recognize the humanity of these children.  Let them have a chance at life, even if doing so comes at great cost and difficulty.

I think the comparison holds.

I think it is.  Ethics/morals are baked into many of our laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

As has been pointed out, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  Especially since your last line shows that you still don’t understand my point. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by bluebell