Jump to content

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That doesn't sound right.

Sometimes abortion is a decision in favor of the interests of the aborted. Like someone who's body is incompatible with life. 

 I agree that there are cases where abortion can be humane, but we are not talking about those outliers.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, pogi said:

The best she can do is have the child.  Because to do otherwise is not only not fair, it is not right to deny the right to life to another human being.   If it brings hardship, that is her, and the fathers, responsibility to bear. 

I doubt we will agree on what is right, or what should be legal, or who deserves human rights, but I am happy that we can at least agree that abortion is not fair for the child.  I wish that we could agree about responsibility.  That seems to be a principle lost.

No, bearing the child might not be the best choice. You cannot know that--you do not know every woman's circumstances. 

I think you've skewed what responsibility can look like. Sometimes aborting might be right for the the unborn.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

 I agree that there are cases where abortion can be humane, but we are not talking about those outliers.

I am talking about the obvious outliers, but also the less obvious situations which are similar but differently-calculated based on measurements only the mother can make.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Why do you think it is that parents mourn the loss of a toddler more than they mourn a miscarriage?

 

52 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Why do you think parents mourn miscarriages more than disposing of extra IVF embryos?

There are definitely people who mourn miscarriages and IVF embryos immensely.  Just as much as a loss of a toddler.  I have relatives that have had both miscarriages and also IVF embryos who have had "burials/ceremonies" for both of those.  They definitely mourned them and still mourn them.

Using emotions to define whether a person is a human or whether they can be aborted is not a good ruler.  There are people who would mourn a miscarriage but would not mourn infanticide.

Link to comment

The LDS church has update their topic page noting that they do recognize that these extreme laws that don’t allow for abortions under the church’s long held position is going to be an attack on religious liberty.

Will the church join current or future lawsuits to challenge many of these Republican created abortion laws. Since they restrict members abilities to follow church religious guidelines on abortions and attack members religious liberty? 
 

The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/abortion

“The statement acknowledged that, while Latter-day Saints hold “a diversity of personal and public policy views” around abortion, official church policy allows for terminating a pregnancy in some instances. Because of this, the current ruling threatens Latter-day Saint religious liberty on the matter, the statement argues, prioritizing an “extreme agenda over the well-being and personal conscience of Latter-day Saints and our neighbors.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/24/faith-leaders-react-roe-v/

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, bearing the child might not be the best choice. You cannot know that--you do not know every woman's circumstances. 

I think you've skewed what responsibility can look like. Sometimes aborting might be right for the the unborn.

If you think avoiding hardship that comes from ones personal choices by killing another is taking responsibility, it isn't.  There is no responsibility towards the life that one creates in aborting them when they are otherwise healthy.  No hardship (for the mother or baby) justifies killing another, especially without their consent.  I have seen some pretty down and out people, the lowest of the low, and their extreme hardship does not justify us in killing them.  It is not merciful.  Taking a life is not a humane way to end hardship.  Some may argue that assisted suicide is merciful in some cases, but that requires consent.  NO ONE should be able to make that choice for another. That is a violation of all that is right and sacred about human life.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

If we believe the aborted will have their chance to live in a body provided by another mother or there is another way that God provides for any individual spirit to continue along the path of eternal progression, why would we always assume it is in the best interest of that individual spirit to be born in that particular body and in that particular family situation? (Not saying this justifies abortion, but there seems to be the belief of some that abortion is always a bad thing for the individual aborted.)

For example, a wife is pushed to have sex by her abusive husband and she agrees to avoid conflict.  She even believes it is a good thing because she has a twisted view of love.  She believes this father will abuse any child she carries to term and delivers and raises though, perhaps they already have children who suffer his abuse.  Because of her participation in sex, there now is a body that requires a spirit and it is provided by God so that requirements of true agency are met, but does that mean this is the best situation ever for the spirit sent to that body or does it simply mean the spirit is willing to make sacrifices and bear unnecessary (for their own progression) hardships because they have accepted God’s Plan and God will ensure they are not limited eternally because of the limited mortal experience they will have?  And if the wife chooses to hide the pregnancy and abort the baby out of fear for herself or the child, could not that mean the spirit is instead sent to a family that will love and protect it instead and it will receive blessings in mortality that they would have to wait till their afterlife if the abortion hadn’t occurred?

How can we be praying certain that in each case it is best for the spirit to be born in that body and not in another?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

The LDS church has update their topic page noting that they do recognize that these extreme laws that don’t allow for abortions under the church’s long held position is going to be an attack on religious liberty.

Will the church join current or future lawsuits to challenge many of these Republican created abortion laws. Since they restrict members abilities to follow church religious guidelines on abortions and attack members religious liberty? 
 

The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”

“The statement acknowledged that, while Latter-day Saints hold “a diversity of personal and public policy views” around abortion, official church policy allows for terminating a pregnancy in some instances. Because of this, the current ruling threatens Latter-day Saint religious liberty on the matter, the statement argues, prioritizing an “extreme agenda over the well-being and personal conscience of Latter-day Saints and our neighbors.”

Link please.  Is the bold comment from the Church or a commentary about the Church’s position?

added:  Looks like it is an interpretation (perhaps correct, perhaps not) of Trib writers.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/24/faith-leaders-react-roe-v/

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

You're using it in direct reference to a legal conflict where government is usurping control over women's bodies.

That some governments do this is without question. 
 

God’s laws may or may not be enshrined into secular law.  I’m just observing that people frequently ignore God’s preferences and admonitions in their personal decision making. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

“The statement acknowledged that, while Latter-day Saints hold “a diversity of personal and public policy views” around abortion, official church policy allows for terminating a pregnancy in some instances. Because of this, the current ruling threatens Latter-day Saint religious liberty on the matter, the statement argues, prioritizing an “extreme agenda over the well-being and personal conscience of Latter-day Saints and our neighbors.”

I don't know where you're pulling this quote from, but it is definitely not on the Church's site. Here's the complete, 'unspun' content:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

  • Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
  • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
  • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link please.  Is the bold comment from the Church or a commentary about the Church’s position?

added:  Looks like it is an interpretation (perhaps correct, perhaps not) of Trib writers.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/24/faith-leaders-react-roe-v/

Added the links. My fault. The first link that discusses religious liberty related to these new laws is from the church’s website. The other quote is from a Tribune article. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Exceptions can be a secular, societal position as well. This is what we see in determining what constitutes a right for the pregnant mother (your term) and balancing her interests and those of the broader society, which may also value the future of the fetus.

Where is this magical society where broader society is deeply invested in the whole future of the unborn? Do they accept refugees?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know where you're pulling this quote from, but it is definitely not on the Church's site. Here's the complete, 'unspun' content:

 

How is it spun?

The church has taken the time just recently to reaffirm the church’s position on abortion. Bednar discussed this at the national press club event “Elder Bednar said the Church believes life is sacred, but considers exceptions to its anti-abortion stance in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother or infant are at risk.” (Clearly drawing a line that shows the church’s position doesn’t coincide  with most of the new right wing State laws.)

And then the church updates it website to link these new laws and religious freedom concerns.

 

 

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nazis can’t have family photos?

You lose.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

If a fetus is viewed as a "risk", who should be responsible for those risks that caused pregnancy in the first place?  The mother and father who made the decision to take the risk, or the fetus who had no say in the matter?  Except in the extreme cases where the pregnancy turns from a healthy state of homeostasis (almost all pregnancies) to a terminal condition, I think the parents bare the responsibility for any risks. 

I have no words to describe my feelings at the thought that it’s better to end an innocent life, than it is to end a relationship that is so fragile or abusive that a pregnancy threatens that relationship. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

How is it spun?

The church has taken the time just recently to reaffirm the church’s position on abortion. Bednar discussions this at the national press club event “Elder Bednar said the Church believes life is sacred, but considers exceptions to its anti-abortion stance in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother or infant are at risk.” (Clearly drawing a line that shows the church’s position doesn’t coincide  with most of the new right wing State laws.)

And then the church updates it website to link these new laws and religious freedom concerns.

 

 

Oddly these do match up with Utah and Idaho abortion laws.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link please.  Is the bold comment from the Church or a commentary about the Church’s position?

added:  Looks like it is an interpretation (perhaps correct, perhaps not) of Trib writers.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/24/faith-leaders-react-roe-v/

The quote seems to be from here:
https://ldsforbidenharris.medium.com/we-must-trust-women-and-protect-access-to-abortion-87e56e3e65be

Link to comment

Now that abortion laws are back in the states where they belong instead of being mandated by the court, the people in the states through their representatives can pass whatever protections they want for mothers and babies. For example, while some states have restrictions, the whole west coast is becoming abortion sanctuaries. If folks don’t like what is happening in their state, they can elect people who can pass the laws they prefer. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I have no words to describe my feelings at the thought that it’s better to end an innocent life, than it is to end a relationship that is so fragile or abusive that a pregnancy threatens that relationship. 

It is a tragedy that people get so messed up that they think this way, but abuse can do a number on one’s ability to think rationally, especially if experienced since childhood.  Many who are abused in childhood develop unhealthy ideas of love and end up in adult abusive relationships even when seeking to escape the abuse of their childhood (I have read too many stories of women who marry young to be able to leave their abusive home because they don’t believe they can manage on their own, only to find out their rescuer is abusive).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

How is it spun?

 

Quote

Because of this, the current ruling threatens Latter-day Saint religious liberty on the matter, the statement argues, prioritizing an “extreme agenda over the well-being and personal conscience of Latter-day Saints and our neighbors.”

The statement doesn't argue these points at all.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The “I have black people in my family/ as friends” excuse still works on some people?

Huh…..

No, but playing the Nazi card is always quite efficacious.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Now that abortion laws are back in the states where they belong instead of being mandated by the court, the people in the states through their representatives can pass whatever protections the want for mothers and babies. For example, while some states have restrictions, the whole west coast is becoming abortion sanctuaries. If folks don’t like what is happening in their state, they can elect people who can pass the laws they prefer. 

These kinds of divisions are not stable or sustainable. And it is quite possible more things are going to be thrown to the states that will widen the schisms.

Civil War 2.0: We Didn’t Learn Our Lesson the First Time

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...