Utah Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion Clinics

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Opinion based on personal experience, the winning arguments are usually a potent cocktail of American ideas of constitutional freedom and LDS primary ideas of Agency, you find it aligns well with the Libertarian core non-coercion principle (don't use force or fraud except in response to force or fraud), losing arguments tend to be reservations against supporting drugs and abortions in any shape or fashion fearing legalizing something means you morally support or validate it, and the temptation to support laws for other people's own good, even if it's against their will.

So the religion that says the Constitution was at least partially inspired by God is also filled with members that think the Constitution was a mistake and the Articles of Confederation were really the way to go.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you really think there spirits that are "never born"?

I don't

Do you have a problem with abortion then?  Since any spirit aborted gets a body eventually?

I am using “never born” for only the body.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Up until your religious beliefs dictate that self governance no longer applies apparently. 

 I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Isn’t choosing whether to have an abortion or not without government or others’ interference (based on their religious beliefs) self governance?  And therefore by your reasoning would work better than outlawing it in the long run if I understand your reasoning. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have a problem with abortion then?  Since any spirit aborted gets a body eventually?

I am using “never born” for only the body.

I think it is a category error to think that a body physically contains a spirit somehow

It mixes spiritual beliefs about WHY bodies are important with medical science.

Radically different contexts of meaning. One is about mechanics and the other about God's purposes for us

In fact it violates the whole purpose of temple work for the dead, if a spirit cannot progress without a body, which is what you seemed to me to imply by thinking that a spirit could be hindered from exaltation by having a body aborted.

Obviously we can progess without a physical body killed before birth as well as one dying after birth.

On the other hand murder is always morally reprehensible, but not because it hinders a spirit 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

which is what you seemed to me to imply by thinking that a spirit could be hindered from exaltation by having a body aborted.

You have misunderstood me. I said I was only referring to bodies of the aborted as never born, not spirits. In no way do I believe abortion prevents the spirit originally meant for that body to proceed long the path to exaltation. 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

the other hand murder is always morally reprehensible,

But is killing a body without sending its spirit on to the afterlife murder?  The Bible does not treat causing a woman to abort like it treats murder, perhaps because it does not usurp God’s dominion in determining the time for a soul (body+spirit) to separate still resurrection. 
 

(I don’t believe we can answer this question because it has not be revealed when a body and a spirit become a living soul; I pose it only because it seems many people—not necessarily you or anyone else on the board—seem to think we know the answer already and therefore believe they can state abortion is definitely murder.)

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think we will eventually look back on elective abortion as a great moral stain, as abhorrent as slavery, and perhaps even more so.

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

I dunno.  The U.S. has a pretty substantial social safety net already.  And though oral contraceptives still require a prescription (that may be changing), they are already pretty cheap.  And OTC options are also pretty cheap.

Self-governance also goes a long way.

Up until your religious beliefs dictate that self governance no longer applies apparently. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Isn’t choosing whether to have an abortion or not without government or others’ interference (based on their religious beliefs) self governance?  

No, I don't think so.  For a few reasons.

First, it is inaccurate to say that state laws regulating abortion are "based on {} religious beliefs."  The ones under discussion have no indicia of such.

Second, this argument would neuter civil law, as all laws eventually infringe on "self governance."

Third, the presence of "government ... interference" in abortion is the status quo.  Per the Guttmacher Institute, "44 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy."  So the question is not whether there is "government ... interference" in abortion decisions, but how much.

Fourth, the comment from me which precipitated SU's obscure statement was: "Self-governance also goes a long way."  The topic was my comment about elective abortion being a "great moral stain," and your subsequent comment about insufficient attention to preemptive solutions that would reduce or eliminate elective abortions ("supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care").  I was saying that, among other things, "self governance" in terms of sexual activity (and use of contraceptives) would "go a long way."  This seems utterly uncontroversial.  And yet SU seemed to have been controverting it anyway (without explanation, hence my inquiry).

Fifth, I have explained my position on the relationship between self-governance/autonomy and abortion several times.  See, e.g., this comment in April 2021:

Quote

Quote

This seems like a very fundamental right to self-govern.

I agree.  I commented on this back in 2019:

 

Quote

 

I find the "'controlling the agency of women' agenda" claim to be absurd.  I couldn't care less what women do to their hair or ears or any other of their body.  Tattoos?  Whatever.  Elective cosmetic surgery?  As you like.  Sterilization?  It's your choice.  And on and on and on.

I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  I think that is the overwhelmingly predominant concern of pro-lifers.  So the accusation that we (including around half of all women) have some sort of dark and twisted desire to "control the agency of women" is absurd.  Stupid.  I reject it out-of-hand.

 

The right to self-govern is not really at issue.  The right to electively kill a defenseless baby is the issue.

Quote

I'd be curious how a libertarian or a small-government conservative could argue for Government decision making in these cases.

I think the key issue is the humanity of the unborn child.  If the child is a human being, then it has rights.  If it has rights (including, notably, the right to live), then those rights deserve protection.

The "Police Power" under the U.S. Constitution refers to "the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."

And this from June 2022:

Quote

Politics are very messy.  And there are few portions of it more controversial and emotional and zeal-inducing than the regulation of abortion.  There are reasonable arguments made on both sides.

The pro-choice folks have some very valid points to make about the importance of bodily autonomy, self-determination, physical/emotional risks to the mother, privacy rights, proper limitations on governmental regulation/oversight, sociological and financial risks/considerations, "back-alley abortions," and so on.

The pro-life folks also have some very valid points to make about the santity of human life, preserving the lives of the unborn, balancing the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child, the concept of "personhood," eugenics, the adverse effects of abortion on the mother, adoption, "Safe Haven" laws, port-abortion regrets, "slippery slope" arguments, and so on.

Given these messy complexities, I can understand that the Church is looking to remind its members of "correct principles" in the doctrines of the Church regarding abortion, and then stepping back and let the members mostly "govern themselves."

And this from May 2022:

Quote

Quote

I’m not trying to start an argument, but if there is inherent “personhood” in a fetus, then all abortions would be considered killing a person.

I think reasonable principles can be utilized in this context.  A few that come to mind:

Principle 1: A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 3: There can also be circumstances in which there is a genuine moral dilemma, such as the life of the mother is materially at risk and/or where the child will not survive birth.  Society must therefore tolerate one terrible choice (death of the child) or another (death of the mother).  Again, this may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 4: Absent force, coercion or deceit, pregnancy is an utterly foreseeable - though plainly not inevitable - consequence of sexual activity.  It is therefore an avoidable consequence.  Once the consequence has materialized, another's personhood is at stake.

Principle 5: "Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Principle 6: The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

Principle 7: This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Principle 8: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

Principle 9: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

• "I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby."
• "The right to self-govern is not really at issue.  The right to electively kill a defenseless baby is the issue."
• "We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters."

I re-affirm these statements.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

And therefore by your reasoning would work better than outlawing it in the long run if I understand your reasoning. 

Outlawing elective abortions?  Removing the lawful ability to electively kill a defenseless baby?  Yes, I think that would be better.

Again, I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  It is that life, the personhood of the child, the rights of the child, that takes elective abortion outside the parameters of "self-governance."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

On 3/16/2023 at 5:32 PM, Calm said:

Imo, the moral stain is how society is not supporting women and families, including free contraceptives and prenatal care so abortion is not seen as a necessary alternative for so many. 

Exactly.

And now by inserting themselves even further in terrain that is not in their stewardship, people are compounding the burden they have displaced onto women.