It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[JAHS]

35 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a currently sitting GA who's wife had 3 D&C's, I just wonder if those will now be constituted as an abortion. I can't imagine going to jail for something you have zero control over, she didn't choose to have a babies in those circumstances and having that procedure needed to happen, I wonder what the benefit of her in prison or paying a fine would be. 

D&Cs are usually what they do after the fetus has already aborted naturally and they go in to clean up the rest of it. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D&Cs are usually what they do after the fetus has already aborted naturally and they go in to clean up the rest of it. 

I hope she and others won't have to end up in jail if it's "aborted naturally" it wasn't her choice it happened

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D&Cs are usually what they do after the fetus has already aborted naturally and they go in to clean up the rest of it. 

I knew one person who said we couldn’t use D&C as an abbreviation anymore for scripture because people would confuse it with abortion. An odd thing. She claimed it came from the General Authorities. It was in the late 90s.

It did not come from the General Authorities.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

My heart aches for people in these circumstances.

I do believe we need to legally differentiate between abortions for convenience and medical abortions, even though I don’t believe a baby not being able to survive long outside of the womb is always a legitimate reason for one. 

If it is not dangerous to the mother to deliver naturally, I imagine it might even be more emotionally beneficial to do so and then allow the parents a brief time with their child to say goodbye. They would not be able to do that with an abortion. But if the mother would be significantly harmed by continuing to carry, as was in the case above, it makes sense to allow an abortion rather than the more risky C Section which includes a much higher cost in recovery as well. 
 

I would hope all states allow this type of medical exception for late term abortions. I am not certain that is likely though, as rational as it appears to me to be.

[Raingirl]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a currently sitting GA who's wife had 3 D&C's, I just wonder if those will now be constituted as an abortion. I can't imagine going to jail for something you have zero control over, she didn't choose to have a babies in those circumstances and having that procedure needed to happen, I wonder what the benefit of her in prison or paying a fine would be. 

Way to be ridiculous. D & C does not always equal abortion. I had a D & C after the birth of my child because I retained placenta. Another friend had one after cancer surgery. No pregnancies involved. I could give many more examples. If you’re going to make an argument for either side, do it from truth and facts. I’ve seen this argument frequently from the pro-abortion side. That all D & Cs will be banned because Roe was overturned.  What do abortion laws have to do with cancer surgery? 

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a currently sitting GA who's wife had 3 D&C's, I just wonder if those will now be constituted as an abortion. I can't imagine going to jail for something you have zero control over, she didn't choose to have a babies in those circumstances and having that procedure needed to happen, I wonder what the benefit of her in prison or paying a fine would be. 

Well that's one issue with trying to police women's reproductive health, unintended consequences of bad law:

Women who want their pregnancies and to birth healthy babies being threatened by laws that may target them if they miscarry, or endanger them if they have a dangerous pregnancy, or prolong the suffering of their child if the unborn has a condition incompatible with life.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You are not the safety net for the unborn, neither is the state or anyone else but the woman first.

Women first, I agree...but who is the safety net?  The idea of a safety net is to catch those where the primary source of protection fails to protect them.  I have read too many abortion stories to know that a safety net is needed.  It is true that only women can carry the unborn, and in that they should be supported.  I FULLY support women in carrying the unborn, and I think we need more support and protection for them.  What I don't support is women killing the unborn, and I think there needs to be more support in preventing that.  Women should be first in protecting the unborn, but unfortunately they are also the greatest threat to the unborn.  I am all with you on supporting women and preventing unwanted pregnancies.  That should be our first priority and highest investment.  We should try and remove every obstacle for a women in having a baby, and allow her the option to adopt if she wishes or keep the child if she wishes, and support her in that.    But regardless of how much support there is, I know that there are just selfish women out there will kill the unborn out of convenience.  They are not all angels and full of wisdom like you make it seem.  They are just as capable of evil as men.  For those cases, there needs to be laws and equal protection for all human life.  

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You cannot make her want to be pregnant, even if you immobilised and drugged her to be a gestational vessel. 

I can't make someone not want to kill their husband either, but I am not about to make such an act legal because I can't stop all of it.  

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nature and all we know about infant health are telling you something: Don't threaten women and don't prevent access to reproductive healthcare in order to make them stay pregnant. This is the wrong way.

It is not the best way, I agree.  I support other options first, but I think equal protection under the law from being killed is an important and necessary part of influencing cultural morality and prevention.  

I have a real distaste for this idea of singling out women from being threatened from killing other humans.    I don't think women are above being influenced/"threatened" by law.  I just don't see that level of righteousness. 

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm glad that you also acknowledge the point of view of the unborn who might be aborted by the mother's choice. Women who abort acknowledge them, and women--including the same women--also acknowledge the unborn who are aborted naturally. We have the experience of pregnancies being started and stopped by our bodies.

Again, I think you are placing all women on too high of a pedestal.  They are not all acknowledging the point of view of advocating for the unborn.  Not all women are aborting for noble reasons.  They may acknowledge their existence, but many don't give a darn or second though about the unborn or think they deserve any form of protection.  Too many women view abortion as morally equivalent to getting a mole removed - I'm sorry but that is not REALLY acknowledging the unborn.

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Show me some anti-abortion laws that decrease that load for women. More specifically, show me some which are a result of overturning Roe.

Show me how having children in general decreases the load for women.  It doesn't.  And therefore, what?   It is not about decreasing the load.  If decreasing our load was the ultimate moral good/goal, I think our species would cease to exist, to be honest.   

Being that the unborn are females and future women, I think it goes without saying that protecting them is protecting women.  I believe in equal opportunity to life for all women and future women.  

Here are a few of those women who survived attempted abortion but are alive and grateful WOMEN today.  The fact that they even have a voice today is priceless.  These are WOMEN who deserved protection when they were young, didn't have it, but luckily survived an attempted killing. 

 

 

 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If it is not dangerous to the mother to deliver naturally, I imagine it might even be more emotionally beneficial to do so and then allow the parents a brief time with their child to say goodbye. They would not be able to do that with an abortion. But if the mother would be significantly harmed by continuing to carry, as was in the case above, it makes sense to allow an abortion rather than the more risky C Section which includes a much higher cost in recovery as well. 
 

I would hope all states allow this type of medical exception for late term abortions. I am not certain that is likely though, as rational as it appears to me to be.

Many years ago, a relative in her first pregnancy found out her her child was anencephalic. She chose to carry to term, and was induced at the appropriate time. Her baby lived for almost a week. This gave the parents precious time with the baby. Something they cherish to this day. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Raingirl
Typo

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is not dangerous to the mother to deliver naturally, I imagine it might even be more emotionally beneficial to do so and then allow the parents a brief time with their child to say goodbye. They would not be able to do that with an abortion. But if the mother would be significantly harmed by continuing to carry, as was in the case above, it makes sense to allow an abortion rather than the more risky C Section which includes a much higher cost in recovery as well. 
 

I would hope all states allow this type of medical exception for late term abortions. I am not certain that is likely though, as rational as it appears to me to be.

Yet even inducing labor for a baby when you know they are dying naturally can be considered abortion. 

[Kevin Christensen]

The decision to overturn Roe, was a result of deliberate, strategic court packing, not of the logic ultimately offered justify the decision.  Merrick Garland was Obama's nominee, certainly qualified to sit on the court.  On the pretext of "letting the voters decide" in an election year, Mitch McConnell refused to let elected representatives decide, and then smugly shoved through three Trump nominees including two in an election year, chosen for the combination of right wing ideology and relative youth, in a election year in which the voters gave the Senate to the Democrats, which lets McConnell's reasoning for refusing to seat Garland sit on the Supreme court hang over his subsequent actions like the aroma of fresh meadow muffins, an extra taint for candidates chosen specifically to overturn Roe, who publically lied to Congress about what they would do about Roe to secure the necessary Senate votes, votes, which, if considered in light of the number of voters the sentators collectively represent, do not represent the majorty of the US population.  Far from it.  (Democratic senators represent 40 million more votes than do Republicans.) Though the only ones who could not see that deception regarding Roe were Joe Manchin and  Susan Collins, who now declare that they were misled. 

Now, we are supposed to rejoice at how wonderful everything will be now that the Supreme Court has decided what is legal and acceptable and leaves what is punishable with threats of life imprisonment and perhaps the death penalty, and in Texas culture of bounties paid to those who inform and what is not, and all the love and trust that such a community with crammed and profitable prisons could possibily aspire towards.  That is far from Alma asking us to "mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort," sharing burdens that they may be light.

Here is a mother of three talking about her burden:

Quote

My story is one that some already know, but for the sake of those who might not, and in light of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, it is best summarized by these three sentences: I was raped when I was 17 years old. I was forced to give birth to a baby when I was 18 years old. My baby died when I was 19 years old.

I wrote my first essay for HuffPost in 2019 regarding my rape at the hands of a trusted friend, how it led to a crisis pregnancy and ultimately, the birth of my daughter, Zoe. I detailed the consequences of being denied an abortion later in pregnancy after discovering she had a fatal neural tube defect called hydranencephaly, and how this meant I was forced to give birth to her and then spend a year watching her slowly die in front of me.

...

It is strange though, to bare the story of Zoe’s life over and over these past few years. There were entire months after she died when I couldn’t even speak my daughter’s name. Evoking her memory and all that came with it would throw open those doors, and what was on the other side would fall out and crush me underneath its vast weight. There was too much pain and not enough of me to hold it back ― too much rage and grief to even begin to figure out how to live with it.

For a long time, I didn’t want to live with it. Sometimes I still don’t. I look out into my future, and all of the past stays clinging to me. I sit here now and begin to write this all down for the hundredth time ― now in the shadow of the Court’s insane and barbaric’s decision ― and hate myself a little bit for trying to affix some purpose or meaning to what happened to me and Zoe. All these years of searching, and I have yet to find any context so significant that it would soften the cruelty of being robbed of dignity, autonomy and sexual agency.

I know the architecture of a life that has been marred by the consequences of forced birth. I know the shame and the indignity of that hospital bed and what it leaves you with after. It has been 16 years, but I can still hear myself begging my mother, my doctor, not to make me do this ― please don’t make me do this. Forced birth was tantamount to the rape I experienced; in some ways, the violation of it went deeper.

The birth wasn’t easy. I quickly became preeclamptic ― my blood pressure surging to dangerously high readings. Alarms began to chime around me. All I could do was lie there and shake and breathe and breathe and breathe. At one point, a nurse or a doctor, I’m not sure which, warned that I was going into shock.

I think my mother must have asked what that meant ― what was happening to me ― because I heard some distant explanation about seizures and stroke and hemorrhage. It sounded like death. I yearned for the simplicity of it, to let my life fade away so I could stop being a thing that thinks and feels, that could understand what was happening to me. Perhaps one moment of pain, and then a great slur of nothingness. In that capacity, Zoe and I were much alike ― both of our bodies sustaining a shadow of a life, heart stuttering and blood pumping, unable to escape the suffering ahead of us. ...

I knew the girl that entered the labor room would not be the same one who left. Zoe was born, and time began to tear through her life, taking with it the person I might have been. Experiences and possibilities and the future I’d worked for, they all died there in that room, on that bed.

I quit high school as a result of post-traumatic stress, unplanned parenthood and fear of my abuser. I’d struggled to fit in with my peers to begin with, but now the gap between us was impossibly great. I was able to get into my local college with a GED, but just when I would muster some resolve to live, the depression and anxiety would tear me back down to size. I was exhausted from frequent hospital stays.

Zoe’s inability to sleep coupled with the constant risk that she might aspirate or suffer a fatal seizure at any moment kept me too hypervigilant to achieve genuine rest. I struggled to be close to anyone, afraid of who they might know. Who they might tell. I didn’t know how to relate to anyone as Dina anymore ― she was gone, and I was what took her place.

...

My lack of a résumé is testament enough to the opportunities and possibilities that I was divested of as a result of forced birth and forced parenting. We are a paycheck-to-paycheck family. I’m only qualified for minimum wage work. We get behind on the house note when the kids fall sick and we need to spend money on the co-pay and medicine. I’m unable to afford the mental health care to treat the PTSD left behind from the first compulsory birth, and you would obligate me to another?

My experiences and how I feel about them are not a matter of opinion. You can not take my life and draw different conclusions from it ― just as you cannot take a person’s desire to abort an unwanted pregnancy and reduce their motives to some nebulous inconvenience.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-wade-abortion-forced-birth-rapist_n_62b489d7e4b06594c1e10e18

As LDS, I do not believe that life begins at conception, but before.  We don't know when the spirit enters the body, but we do have one hint in 3 Nephi: "On the morrow come I into the world."  What kind of life would I choose for my mother, the one to bear, birth, and then raise me, the one through who I enter into this world characterized not by absolutes, but of opposition in all things? If I have a choice, what would I choose for her?  If I have a voice, how does that enter in?  Do her circumstances matter, or just any chance for any kind of life for me no matter the length or quality and no matter what the cost to anyone else, especially that one who bears the most direct pain and responsibility?  Can individual circumstances matter, or is this an absolute which bears no opposition, no special cirumstances, no compromise?

I often think on paragraph by Nibley in "The Unsolved Loyalty Problem" "The cruelty of the times (the fourth century), says Afoldi,cannot be fully explained by the corruption of the age;... the spirit of the fourth century has its part to play. The victory of abstract ways of thinking, the universal triumph of theory, knows no half-measure; punishment, like everything else must be a hundred percent, but even this seem inadequate" Compromise is now out of the question: God, who once let the sun shine on the just and the unjust, and let the wheat and tares grow together, now insists that the unjust should cease to exist, and that only sheep should inhabit it."  

What does Jesus say regarding those who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers?"  The states which are most adamanantly anti-abortion are also those that provide the worst health care, the poorest school funding, the worst help for the poorest, and that tried hardest to resist and then remove Obamacare. 

There was nothing about legal abortion that made it compulsory for anyone, even when a person has difficult and complex choices to make.  It was simply one choice available to person most impacted.  Does the power to compell choice for all, to have one circumstance fit all, to say, if a woman is raped or endangered in health, she just has to stay raped and face the danger and inconvenience, or go to prison for life, and not complicate other people's lives with socialist claims on the community for the next 19 years, go with priesthood?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonburg, PA

 

[bsjkki]

Medical care for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages is legal in all 50 states. 

[longview]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet even inducing labor for a baby when you know they are dying naturally can be considered abortion. 

Two key differences here:  1- inducing does NOT harm the baby (it merely hastens the birthing process);  2- if the mother is dying, all the more reason for extricating the baby before the mother's biological systems shut down.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I just can't get myself to see why it should be less about them, they are "already living" too.  I don't think it matters what type of person they will be, they deserve a shot to be the best that they can be.  

Are your siblings grateful to be alive?  Are you grateful for them despite the increased hardships?

Not more important, but equally important.  Equal opportunities and equal share of hardships. 

 

My situation was not extreme, there were significant support systems in place. Our physical health was not at risk.  

Equal share of homelessness and possible death doesn’t seem fair to any of the children, even the living fetus in my view when the other possibility is at least borderline survival living, being relatively safe if still under highly stressed situations.

In a poverty setting or an abusive one, it cannot always be said there are support systems in place as there were for my family.  Harm, even death, may be a likely outcome of adding another child to a family. Perhaps four emotionally and physically damaged kids vs three borderline kids…that you cannot see the difference if a mother has to choose between barely providing for her children’s needs and seeing them being placed in dangerous situations, I don’t get it. 

A fetus is living, but it is not a fully developed human with all the awareness of life and if an abortion is early, it might not even be able to suffer.  If you had to choose between saving a baby and a five year old in a fire, I suspect it would be a very difficult decision and one you might secondguess or at least have nightmares about the rest of your life  If you had to choose between for sure saving a five year old child and a somehow a frozen embryo or somehow portable month old fetus, would you be in as difficult of a dilemma, needing a few seconds to decide?  Would you choose to try and also save the fetus even though that put the five year old at greater risk of death or suffering?  If you did attempt to save both, would you regret it if you had to listen to the child screaming in pain as it was burning because you failed?  Can’t you imagine what a mother might experience if she looked at her children and thought of them starving or homeless if she lost her job due to pregnancy or thinking of them out on the street because having to care for an infant meant she had to let the older kids care for themselves?

If the government or others were stepping in so kids were much less likely to be homeless or  without food or supervision, rarely were in danger of being beaten or shot, I would feel differently about having stronger laws preventing abortion for practical reasons for the benefit of 

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

Two key differences here:  1- inducing does NOT harm the baby (it merely hastens the birthing process);  2- if the mother is dying, all the more reason for extricating the baby before the mother's biological systems shut down.

But that's one issue with criminalising abortion: it results in women not being allowed to do this. It has already done so in some states, some of which are creating laws even more strict now.

[Durangout]

Elizabeth Warren never stops entertaining.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Durangout

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Way to be ridiculous. D & C does not always equal abortion. I had a D & C after the birth of my child because I retained placenta. Another friend had one after cancer surgery. No pregnancies involved. I could give many more examples. If you’re going to make an argument for either side, do it from truth and facts. I’ve seen this argument frequently from the pro-abortion side. That all D & Cs will be banned because Roe was overturned.  What do abortion laws have to do with cancer surgery? 

and you trust the idiots on the Supreme Court of your own dumb country to know all this? I hope they tell you as a woman what issues you face and how you are to act before you and others go to jail or paying fines

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The decision to overturn Roe, was a result of deliberate, strategic court packing, not of the logic ultimately offered justify the decision.  Merrick Garland was Obama's nominee, certainly qualified to sit on the court.  On the pretext of "letting the voters decide" in an election year, Mitch McConnell refused to let elected representatives decide, and then smugly shoved through three Trump nominees including two in an election year, chosen for the combination of right wing ideology and relative youth, in a election year in which the voters gave the Senate to the Democrats, which lets McConnell's reasoning for refusing to seat Garland sit on the Supreme court hang over his subsequent actions like the aroma of fresh meadow muffins, an extra taint for candidates chosen specifically to overturn Roe, who publically lied to Congress about what they would do about Roe to secure the necessary Senate votes, votes, which, if considered in light of the number of voters the sentators collectively represent, do not represent the majorty of the US population.  Far from it.  (Democratic senators represent 40 million more votes than do Republicans.) Though the only ones who could not see that deception regarding Roe were Joe Manchin and  Susan Collins, who now declare that they were misled. 

Now, we are supposed to rejoice at how wonderful everything will be now that the Supreme Court has decided what is legal and acceptable and leaves what is punishable with threats of life imprisonment and perhaps the death penalty, and in Texas culture of bounties paid to those who inform and what is not, and all the love and trust that such a community with crammed and profitable prisons could possibily aspire towards.  That is far from Alma asking us to "mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort," sharing burdens that they may be light.

Here is a mother of three talking about her burden:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-wade-abortion-forced-birth-rapist_n_62b489d7e4b06594c1e10e18

As LDS, I do not believe that life begins at conception, but before.  We don't know when the spirit enters the body, but we do have one hint in 3 Nephi: "On the morrow come I into the world."  What kind of life would I choose for my mother, the one to bear, birth, and then raise me, the one through who I enter into this world characterized not by absolutes, but of opposition in all things? If I have a choice, what would I choose for her?  If I have a voice, how does that enter in?  Do her circumstances matter, or just any chance for any kind of life for me no matter the length or quality and no matter what the cost to anyone else, especially that one who bears the most direct pain and responsibility?  Can individual circumstances matter, or is this an absolute which bears no opposition, no special cirumstances, no compromise?

I often think on paragraph by Nibley in "The Unsolved Loyalty Problem" "The cruelty of the times (the fourth century), says Afoldi,cannot be fully explained by the corruption of the age;... the spirit of the fourth century has its part to play. The victory of abstract ways of thinking, the universal triumph of theory, knows no half-measure; punishment, like everything else must be a hundred percent, but even this seem inadequate" Compromise is now out of the question: God, who once let the sun shine on the just and the unjust, and let the wheat and tares grow together, now insists that the unjust should cease to exist, and that only sheep should inhabit it."  

What does Jesus say regarding those who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers?"  The states which are most adamanantly anti-abortion are also those that provide the worst health care, the poorest school funding, the worst help for the poorest, and that tried hardest to resist and then remove Obamacare. 

There was nothing about legal abortion that made it compulsory for anyone, even when a person has difficult and complex choices to make.  It was simply one choice available to person most impacted.  Does the power to compell choice for all, to have one circumstance fit all, to say, if a woman is raped or endangered in health, she just has to stay raped and face the danger and inconvenience, or go to prison for life, and not complicate other people's lives with socialist claims on the community for the next 19 years, go with priesthood?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonburg, PA

 

I wish I could share this on my FB, such an epic compilation. Hadn't thought of the idea of the spirit child maybe thinking of the mother first. If I misunderstood the analogy please correct me. 

And sad that those states that don't provide better situations for women to either take care of a baby, or help her with birth control, are the strictest, and says a lot of how they feel about females/children.

 

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Medical care for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages is legal in all 50 states. 

CFR?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, longview said:

2- if the mother is dying, all the more reason for extricating the baby before the mother's biological systems shut down.

Are you claiming inducing is safer for the mother than abortion?  Not understanding your last point in context of the discussion. 

[Ipod Touch]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

unintended consequences of bad law:

and conservatives should know better.  one reason we support limited government is because government involvement in anything often makes things worse. 

just imagine the logistics of trying to police and enforce these laws.  What happens if a doctor-approved procedure is later challenged.  who had right to challenge his/her medical decision?  an unelected government employee churning out page upon page of regulation?  heaven help us

Edited June 28, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is not dangerous to the mother to deliver naturally, I imagine it might even be more emotionally beneficial to do so and then allow the parents a brief time with their child to say goodbye. They would not be able to do that with an abortion. But if the mother would be significantly harmed by continuing to carry, as was in the case above, it makes sense to allow an abortion rather than the more risky C Section which includes a much higher cost in recovery as well. 
 

I would hope all states allow this type of medical exception for late term abortions. I am not certain that is likely though, as rational as it appears to me to be.

Agreed.

Also, from a purely theological perspective (and not one that I believe should be considered as far as laws go), we believe that some spirits need to come to earth in bodies that will not live long.  We also believe that some spirits are meant to come in disabled bodies.  If elective abortions get to the point where we are using our agency to stop both of those things from occurring, then God would have to intervene with something drastic.  Or stop intervening in some way that He is currently that we don't recognize, to bring about the same consequence.  

He won't allow us to frustrate His plan.  

[Ipod Touch]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and you trust the idiots on the Supreme Court of your own dumb country to know all this

Unfortunately, the media does a horrible job of framing the actual issues.

The issue here IS NOT abortion itself.  The Justices give no consideration to morality of abortion.  The only question they are considering is if "substantive due process" is a justifiable approach to interpreting the constitution.  This decision concluded that substantive due process is not a legitimate way of interpreting the constitution and that the particulars of regulating specifics should be left to state legislatures.

So I'm of two minds on this specific ruling.  On one hand, I do like to see sovereignty remain primarily with states.  On the other, I do support safe, legal, and rare abortion.  Good reasoning, bad short-term outcomes until states get their own abortion laws together.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, from a purely theological perspective (and not one that I believe should be considered as far as laws go), we believe that some spirits need to come to earth in bodies that will not live long.  We also believe that some spirits are meant to come in disabled bodies. 

Are you sure it is doctrine this must occur?  I have interpreted it as being able to be sufficient for their mortal experience because that is all they need or because God can turn bad experiences, suffering into good for us through the atonement, but I don’t believe it is a necessity that certain spirits only have a very brief mortal experience or be placed in a specific type of disabled body. We need opposition in life, not sure we need a specific set though.  

[Raingirl]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and you trust the idiots on the Supreme Court of your own dumb country to know all this? I hope they tell you as a woman what issues you face and how you are to act before you and others go to jail or paying fines

Apparently, your hatred for America affects your critical thinking skills. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you sure it is doctrine this must occur?  I have interpreted it as being able to be sufficient for their mortal experience because that is all they need or because God can turn bad experiences, suffering into good for us through the atonement, but I don’t believe it is a necessity that certain spirits only have a very brief mortal experience or be placed in a specific type of disabled body. We need opposition in life, not sure we need a specific set though.  

Good point.

I will amend to say that this is an interpretation of doctrine that I have heard frequently and that makes the most sense to me.