66 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Wow. Sad, sad stories LIZ. I feel for the Joneses. I had friends who faced a similar decision with regard to their first baby, which was born with a defective heart and lived only a few hours. They did not terminate the pregnancy though the doctors recommended it. The baby was not able to feed normally and they did not feed the baby IV fluids because there was no way the baby could live long with the terrible heart defect, so food was pointless. I think the same thing is true for a baby with no brain. Anyone who thinks that child should have been fed is crazy, and should mind their own business and just support and love that poor family. I’m sorry they had to move. That seems like the worst part of the story in a way. To its credit, the Church does not teach that there is never a time when abortion is appropriate, nor does it teach that abortion is murder. There are going to be times when it is appropriate and even necessary to terminate a pregnancy, and we should be glad it’s an option, even though we all should hope and pray that it’s very rare. |
Extremely tragic story, especially so for those who had to experience it first hand |
I am solidly pro-choice. I do not believe in abortion. But I believe in the womans right to choose. On the other hand, with the vast array of birth control options, the number of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies should be miniscule. I believe there are women who don’t feel an emotional connection to their unborn babies and blithely opt for abortion over responsibility. That’s on them. Life presents tragic situations. I thank God I am not God. |
The availability of cheap contraception has not stemmed the increasing number of births out of wedlock, reaching 70% in some communities. One must conclude that the mothers intended to become pregnant in the hope of persuading the fathers to bond with them, or simply to graduate themselves into some kind of adulthood with public financing. The millions of healthy babies that are aborted are killed because they were inconvenient for someone. The assertion that abortion is protecting a sacred right of self-determination for the mother sounds like a rationalization to me of the mother bowing to the refusal of the father to take responsibility for his child. Given the reality of contraception, it seems likely that the babies aborted,like the ones born out of wedlock, are often the result of deliberation by their mothers, but a decision that has been overcome by later events, including the refusal of the “father” to raise the child. The power to choose whether to bear a child or not has been exercised with poor judgment in the decision to conceive, and with even more poor judgment in the decision to abort. |
I was thinking of my super evangelical clients who work to change abortion laws so that NO abortions will be allowed, under any circumstance. I find them scary in their hard line politics and completely unChristlike. |
“All I know is the stories I read in the Ensign are the miracle ones, where the baby turns out to be alright, not the ones where the unthinkable is reality.” Are you implying that the Church doesn’t tell the other side of story? Because that simply isn’t the case: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/12/dont-let-my-baby-die https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/09/the-gift-and-the-promise?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/02/our-stillborn-baby?lang=eng http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/07/coping-with-the-heartache-of-miscarriage http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/04/many-kinds-of-compassion …or perhaps you are merely saying you refuse to read the tragic stories, which would be understandable. |
MC – Thanks for the links. I can handle tragedy just fine. My point is an average Ensign magazine has at least three short, self-reported “Miracle” stories at the back in every issue. Good news trumphs the bad in the Ensign format. It’s not bad, heaven knows I don’t want to read a monthly magazine of heartache. It just isn’t balanced, which might lead to Magical Thinking in the face of stressful situations. |
“which might lead to Magical Thinking.” You mean Faith? The whole point of religion? God forbid! |
About 1 million babies were aborted in our country last year, mostly because the mom or especially the dad didn’t want to take responsibility for the baby right then. About 1 million babies were aborted the year before, for the same reason. Today approximately 2700 babies will be aborted. You have to strain pretty hard to get to the gnats in your post and overlook these camels. |
“Good news trumphs the bad in the Ensign format.” “Good news” always trumps the bad in a Christian worldview, if you catch my meaning. |
mc: point. I applaud LIZ’s courage in braving a very difficult subject. I’ve felt the efforts of those who publish the Ensign to be more real while still maintaining a high level of dignity and faith. I cannot imagine how I would deal with some of the agonizing pregnancies that are presented here as examples. For me, it all comes back to I am not God. I wasn’t aware of the statistics you present, Raymond, but it makes sense. I know three couples right now who are dying to adopt and would be (unlike your situation, LIZ) wonderful, loving parents. Life is just damn hard and not fun a lot of the time. |
Adam, so you’re saying that because those people make wrong choices, all abortions should be illegal? The point of the post was that there are some situations (however rare they might be) in which abortion might be an appropriate choice. Your response is to quote statistics where it was the wrong choice. Those statistics are a given. But they don’t address the idea that despite them, having the choice is still worthwhile. |
“Those statistics are a given. But they don’t address the idea that despite them, having the choice is still worthwhile.” Actually, I would say the statistics DO address the idea that that “having the choice is still worthwhile.” Roe v. Wade results in 1 million babies killed per year. How many babies killed would be too high a price to pay so that people whose babies have a one in a million sort of deformity can have an abortion? Especially in light of the fact that most opponents of Roe would allow for exceptions in cases such as the ones cited in the original post? |
It’s not Roe v. Wade that dictates that result, MC. If that were the case, then there would be zero abortions prior to Roe. We all know that is not what was happening prior to that ruling. Bad behavior and the consequences of bad behavior are going to happen regardless. By taking away the option of abortion you are not going to stop sex outside of marriage or irresponsible attitudes toward pregnancy or parenthood. You are not even going to stop abortions. You are only going to make them unsafe and underground. If history has shown anything then it has shown that you don’t stop something by making it illegal. You stop it by taking away the need for it. The way to do that is good education and access to birth control. If you really want the fewest abortions, that idea has the best chance of success. If all you want to do is bloviate and impose your moral imperatives on others as an attempt at control, then keep trying to make it illegal. My prediction is that you will fail spectacularly. |
There’s a false dichotomy in this thread. It’s not abortion-on-demand versus no-abortion-at-all. Prior to Roe v Wade most states, if not all, did allow for abortion in case of rape, incest, or if the life/health of the mother was endangered. If Roe v Wade were to be undone, and the previous laws were re-instituted, these rare cases would still be allowed to have abortions. |
I think Jettboy’s comment deserves to be addressed, assuming he’s actually serious. I don’t want to speak for LIZ, but no, Jettboy, I don’t think LIZ means that faith is not important, or that miracles don’t happen. I suspect she only means that we don’t believe in relying solely on faith to get us through stressful times. We are taught to “work like it all depends on us and pray like it all depends on God.” That is faith in action and not magical thinking. |
Sometimes magical thinking or what I call faith is all there is. At other times that is what it takes to act. Hope, faith, and charity are Christian attributes. Fear and heartache are not. It isn’t because people make wrong choices that abortion should be illegal, but because it is murder. |
No, it’s not, Jettboy. You seem to be very concerned about following the bretheren at all times. They have explicitly said abortion is not murder:
Elder Russell M. Nelson, General Conf. May 1985 As Elder Nelson makes clear, abortion is not treated as murder in our repentance process or in any other setting in our Church. Is it your intention to contradict the Church leadership on this issue or are you just ignorant? Here is the Church’s official statement on abortion:
If abortion were murder, there would be no exceptions. It would not be okay to commit murder in response to rape or incest, or even in the case of the other exceptions. Exceptions are allowed only because abortion is not murder. I am not advocation abortion, and neither is LIZ, I believe, but to suggest that abortion is abortion is equivalent to murder is clearly wrong, and those who think that criminalization is the only way to curb a terrible thing like abortion are failing to consider other approaches that are likely to yield more desirable results. |
I have a comment in moderation If someone would rescue it, I would appreciate it. |
If irresponsibility is driving abortions (cf. RTS and Adam G.), wouldn’t it make sense to ban irresponsibility rather than abortions? That way you get your millions of healthy babies without having to infringe on a mother’s sacred right of self-determination. |
Since laws do not change the availability or use of prohibited things, could someone direct me to a reliable black market source of 100 Watt incandescent bulbs. |
If the hard cases were what abortion availability were about, then it could be heavily regulated like many liberties are to limit abuses. There could be judicial hearings to consider each abortion, like those held to decide if a child-killing dog should be euthanized. Those who are pro-choice would be fine with that because killing a fetus is a serious thing, even more serious than killing a dog, with more on the line than one person’s liberty. The hard cases largely aren’t what abortion availability is about, and so pro-choice advocates fight the least regulation and hide behind the hard cases. |
I’d take pro-life advocates more seriously if they advocated as much for easily-available free birth control (proven to drastically reduce abortion rates) as they did for laws outlawing abortion. Too much focus on their ideal, and not enough focus on reality. If you really care about those unborn children, there are things you can do that will actually make a huge difference. I also think it’s hilarious that both liberals and conservatives use the “if it’s illegal people will still keep doing it” mantra. Guns, anyone? |
As far as judicial hearings go, I’ve spent too much time in the courtroom to believe they’d be at all effective. More likely, they’d be terribly expensive and they’d be scheduled three months out. I’d much rather have a doctor or a small panel of healthcare professionals decide it–quicker, and quite frankly, they know more about what’s going on than a judge will. In fact, studies have been done that show that judges have taken fewer science courses on average than the general public–not someone I’d trust with that kind of decision. |
Where’s free birth control been shown to reduce abortions? Considering that most abortions involve women in their 20s and 30s, birth control availability may have little to do with it. Or is this some (temporary) sterilization program of targeted groups being considered, some “come get you implant and we’ll give you welfare” sort of thing? |
No, it’s not, Jettboy. You seem to be very concerned about following the bretheren at all times. They have explicitly said abortion is not murder: “the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” Elder Russell M. Nelson, General Conf. May 1985 As Elder Nelson makes clear, abortion is not treated as murder in our repentance process or in any other setting in our Church. Is it your intention to contradict the Church leadership on this issue or are you just ignorant? Here is the Church’s official statement on abortion: “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: The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct. The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.” If abortion were murder, there would be no exceptions. It would not be okay to commit murder in response to rape or incest, or even in the case of the other exceptions. Exceptions are allowed only because abortion is not murder. I am not advocating abortion, and neither is LIZ, I believe, but to suggest that abortion is abortion is equivalent to murder is clearly wrong, and those who think that criminalization is the only way to curb a terrible thing like abortion are failing to consider other approaches that are likely to yield more desirable results. |
I think Mormons should appreciate how it feels to have others dictate to you what you should and should not believe. And that’s exactly what much of the Pro-Life movement is doing. “When life begins” is purely a religious or philosophical question – hard to prove one way or the other. Unless you also believe that conception is a form of life termination. (yes many people believe this) As Paul Ryan says it: “the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” In other words, HIS definition of when life begins. (Oh, BTW – this was a response to the question – Should a woman be forced to carry her rapists child? A question that the LDS Church has a completely different answer for) I guess the big ‘choice’ for me is the choice for a women to determined for herself when life begins. We ALL draw the line somewhere. If a fetus in the womb is EXACTLY like a child on the outside and ending the life of either is EXACTLY the same, then why would the Church offer acceptable exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother? Is there ever a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her *born* child? Its not the same thing. |
Any reason I’m still in moderation? |
Sorry, I haven’t been on; didn’t notice. Mcq, you have an account; did you get the email? You can take yourself out of moderation. :) (perks of commenting a lot) |
100 watt lightbulbs are illegal? Really? I’m so screwed. I stocked up but I’ll run out after awhile. |
(I have to stock up and hide them because Bill keeps switching them out) |
I am reading this book: The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt. He discusses the many differences between what is considered moral among peoples and makes the point that much of morality is relative (using a gross example of a medical student cutting a piece of tissue from a cadaver, taking it home to cook and eat it). I’m not far into it, but it kind of speaks to the argument here. If God judges us individually and by the light we have individually AND by our motives, this issue can be relative, too. I don’t feel good about that sentence, but who knows? |
annegb, I didn’t get the email, so I don’t have an account as far as I know. I used to be able to log in under your name, but you changed your password. ;-) |
MCQ, “If abortion were murder, there would be no exceptions. It would not be okay to commit murder in response to rape or incest, or even in the case of the other exceptions. Exceptions are allowed only because abortion is not murder.” You are making a categorical error. A “murder” is merely a killing of another human without justification. I can “kill” a man without “murdering” him. Self-defense, just war, etc. Just because the killing of a baby (or any other person) may be justified in certain instances doesn’t mean that in other instances it isn’t murder. Of course, the rape and incest exceptions suggest some ambiguity as to the moral equivalence of the baby’s life with that of a post-partum baby. For now we see through a glass darkly. Our laws ought to reflect that moral ambiguity. Roe v. Wade destroys that ambiguity, and gives license to all kinds of killings that are unambigously monstrous and murderous. “By taking away the option of abortion you are not going to stop sex outside of marriage or irresponsible attitudes toward pregnancy or parenthood. You are not even going to stop abortions. You are only going to make them unsafe and underground.” Are you really so certain that no one ever refrains from an action because its illegal? Even on the margins? That’s an awfully blithe assumption to make when we’re debating whether it should be legal to kill a baby, don’t you think? |
“That way you get your millions of healthy babies without having to infringe on a mother’s sacred right of self-determination.” What about the baby’s right of self-determination? |
I apologize for all of the comments that have ended up in moderation. For some reason, this thread’s comments have caused the spam filter to flag an unusual number of contributions as spam requiring approval from admins. So I just want to be clear that nobody has been actively grabbing comments to throw them in moderation, but that the spam filter has automatically placed them in the spam review queue to be manually approved by an admin, and any delay is simply due to the fact that we sometimes don’t check it as often as we should. |
On a related note, this is why we never see DKL around here anymore. He’s been in moderation all this time. |
Damn. It’s a perfect comment on how starved I am for DKL’s presence that I am uber-thrilled just to get a bland admin announcement from him. Thanks DKL. Even for that. |
Now all I need is for Evans to announce a new comment policy on BCC and my whole year is made. Weird. |
MC, we are approaching this from exactly the opposite point of view, like the blind men feeling their way along different ends of the elephant, so I don’t know if we’re going to make headway here, but I do think it’s a valuable discussion to have regardless.
Your argument is not with me on this point, it’s with Elder Nelson. Jettboy said that abortion is murder. No exceptions, no other categories, just murder. As an attorney, I understand the definition of murder as well as anyone, and abortion does not meet that definition. Not just because I say so, but because Elder Nelson says so. I made that point in response to Jettboy because he tends to be rather inflexible (to put it politely) in his admonitions to others that they should follow the bretheren in all things, and yet ironically, he insists on departing the text when it comes to this particular hobby horse. In my mind, that’s ok, because we all have some things we don’t agree with the Church leaders about, bit at the very least, a guy like Jettboy should acknowledge the fact that his words fly in the face of Church policy. As should you. |
Interesting you say that, because the opinion in Roe was intended, I believe, to strike a balance. It was a compromise between to diametrically opposed and somewhat unyielding views: First, the view that abortion should be illegal with no exceptions or only very rare ones, and second, the view that a woman’s right to privacy and self-determination means that she should have the unrestricted right to have an abortion almost at any time she desires, with only minor exceptions. The balance that was struck said that the woman had a right to privacy under the 14th amendment that allowed for abortion but that the woman’s right to privacy diminished the longer the fetus was in the womb. In other words, the baby does have rights which get stronger the longer it grows until the point where the baby’s rights become greater than the woman’s right, which the court said generally happened at about 24-28 weeks of pregnancy. You may disagree with the court for a lot of things, but in my mind it’s hard to say that the woman has no right whatsoever to privacy and self-determination.
|
Sorry I screwed up the quote box on that last comment. My point about prohibition is simply that it’s a classic and unequivocal example of the utter failure of the criminal law as a tool of social engineering to keep people from doing something they really want to do. |
I am also a realist. The fact is that we will never completely reverse Roe. And even if we did, there would be a lot of states (the vast majority) that would still allow abortions. So why are we still talking about criminalizing abortions? That ship has sailed. Focus on something that can actually happen and that will actually help: education and birth control so that abortions are practically unneccessary and unheard of. |
I have a comment in moderation again. |
You have no right to contradict my moral compass MCQ by quoting prophets (although they are necessary for correcting the world). I love them, I believe they almost always speak for the Lord, but I am very concerned about following God and they are not Him. When have I ever, “. . . admonitions to others that they should follow the bretheren in all things”? No, I have admonished that too many justify their sins when the Scriptures and prophets (and Holy Spirit) have been ignored, contradicted, or mocked to justify modernist philosophy and morals. When it comes to abortion, I follow Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-28 with my opinion: “26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.” Since, “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion,” I feel it my personal “choice” to seek legislation to stop the mass killing of innocent lives. Like divorce, it might be winked at by God at times because of human weakness, but still evil for those attuned to the spirit of God (and don’t think I don’t seek to legislate against no fault divorce). The Lord might not be stringent for particular reasons as listed, but that doesn’t take away the fact a life has been snuffed out. Besides, by the definition of Elder Russell M. Nelson, murder is not murder. You might as well quote, “And as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of [murder].” I can give you an example if you think I am wrong with that last bit. “I guess the big ‘choice’ for me is the choice for a women to determined for herself when life begins. We ALL draw the line somewhere.” This one is great. By the same logic I would like to choose for myself who is human and who is animal. Why is the law interfering in my ability to enslave or get rid of “those” I think are pestilence? “So why are we still talking about criminalizing abortions?” Ah yes, the everyone is doing it and I am only following orders excuse. We are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God so lets just forget this whole “gospel” thing; and actually I think many have done just that for this very reason. |
Wow, Jettboy, you’re really off the rails now. Tossing the prophets and the Lord aside because you know better? That’s really hardcore. I had no idea you were this much of a wacko. Congratulations. |
To be “wacko” is to be free from the constraints of man and fully in the arms of God. |
The same God you just threw under the bus? You said he winks at divorce and is not stringent on abortion, but you know better. His arms might not be so welcoming, pal. Better check on whose arms you’re really in. |
Why wouldn’t God be more relaxed about abortion? The aborted babies are never dead to God. He never loses sight of them and will, I trust, provide a way for them to progress in his loving way. All the concern about murdering babies seems a little misplaced, at least to the extent it focuses on the baby. The aborted babies are never lost to God-that would be impossible. They just move to another place in their path on eternal progression. I’m not sure Jettboy is off the rails-probably just his meds. 45 was a classic. |
Jettboy, You will never live these words down: “I guess the big ‘choice’ for me is the choice for a women to determined for herself when life begins. We ALL draw the line somewhere.”
You’re not following the logic. Most people would agree that abortion is morally justifiable if the health of the mother is at risk. And, the Church is even more liberal than that. So, once you move to that position, you’re admitting that abortion is not the same as murder – because no where are people allowing women to murder their born children. Even if those born children are threatening their life or the result of a rape. |
Also Jettboy, please tell me that you oppose contraception in all cases – because you’re argument boxes you into that corner. |
MCQ, I can’t help but notice that you intentionally clipped Elder Nelson’s quote in a misleading way. What he said was, “Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder.” There are two qualifiers there: “Without full understanding” and “So far as is known”. My position that some abortions, i.e., with full understanding, are murder is not in the least inconsistent with Church teachings. “Interesting you say that, because the opinion in Roe was intended, I believe, to strike a balance.” Doesn’t matter what it was intended to do. What it has done is this: “But,” you say, “Roe v. Wade didn’t mandate legal, late-term abortion.” But ask yourself, was there such a thing as an “abortion clinic” before Roe? Did licensed doctors keep freezers full of dead babies before Roe? |
MC, Not to jack MCQ’s response, but please tell me if there are any cases where abortion is morally right – in your view. If there are any, please explain why. Also, please make an argument for contraception being morally right in any particular case. Thank You. |
MC, you must be kidding. You can’t possibly be so stupid as to think there were no doctors performing abortions before Roe. There were. Many. And are you really telling me that Roe is responsible for people violating the law? If so, what is responsible for all the abortions performed before Roe was decided?
I’m sure they did that and much worse: http://www.galenpress.com/demon_doctors.html Please tell me, if a licensed doctor robs a bank, is that the fault of Roe v. Wade as well?
Mandate it??? Roe didn’t mandate any abortions you dumbass, and it specifically said late term abortions were not protected by privacy and could be prohibited by law. Please explain how a case that said late term abortions were illegal can be held responsible for those same late term abortions being performed. Do you imagine that no late term abortions were performed before Roe? Because you would be wrong. In fact: Since Roe v. Wade, a greater proportion of women who have an abortion have done so early in pregnancy. See here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html |
MCQ, Your juvenile denunciations (“stupid” “dumbass”) of arguments that any fair reader can tell I did not make is disappointing. This is my first time commenting here and my last. I thought this was a place for civil and honest discussion, but it appears not. Genuinely unfortunate. |
MC, if you read carefully, you will see that I did not call you stupid, I said you couldn’t possibly be that stupid. As for dumbass, you’re right, and I apologize. It got me riled that you seemed to be saying that the Roe court was mandating abortions. Obviously, as I’m sure you know, that is not the case. If my crassness causes you to not address the substantive arguments I was making, then please understand that was not my intent. I think this discussion is important, but I also think it’s important to make arguments that are fair and honest. Your argument that Roe v. Wade caused doctors to perform late term abortions and store fetuses in freezers is neither fair nor honest, and I suspect you know that. Anyone who makes arguments like that should expect a fair amount of denunciations in response. |
CJ, “please tell me if there are any cases where abortion is morally right – in your view. If there are any, please explain why.” I don’t know if I’m in a position to say that abortion is ever “morally right” in the sense that it would be “morally wrong” not to have one. To me, the two relevant standards are whether I would be morally OK with doing it myself, and whether I would be morally OK with permitting others to do it. I would be OK with terminating a pregnancy within the first few weeks if it posed a serious risk to my wife’s life. Of course every pregnancy does pose some risk, and I’m not talking about that. I mean a substantial risk that my wife could die or put in a permanently disabled state by the birth. For the same risks, late in pregnancy I would leave the decision entirely in my wife’s (or any other woman’s) hands. I would only note that all of us (I hope) would jump in front of a bus to save our own newborn baby, and I would be surprised if my wife felt much different about saving a nearly-born baby. Of course these are on a sliding scale with regard to the level of risk and the baby’s own likelihood of survival, but absent risk to the mother’s life or catastrophic physical disability, I cannot see the justification. As for rape and incest, I believe that the insult to human nature brought about by such pregnancies warrants allowing women to abort in the early weeks of pregnancy. I am not sure how I would myself act in that situation. By the time the baby is in the last half of the gestation period, I am certain that I would not favor abortion in our family’s case. I am less certain that it should be illegal. But we don’t allow people to kill newborn babies because they are the product of rape or incest, and a baby after 25 weeks or so has a lot more in common with a newborn baby than it does with a week-old fetus. So I would probably prohibit late-term abortions for rape or incest, possibly with the exception that the mother only found out about the baby’s origin at that stage. “Also, please make an argument for contraception being morally right in any particular case.” Why? I have no problem with contraception. Contraception is not infanticide. I disagree with those who decline the commandment to go forth and multiply, but that has nothing to do with killing babies. |
Sorry, I meant to address this earlier. It is not misleading to clip the quote in the way that I did because the part I left out is not relevant to the discussion. Jettboy said abortion was murder. An apostle said otherwise. That is the relevant portion of the quote. The part I left out does not change that meaning. You are now trying to say that the words “without full understanding” completely undercut the later statement that the Lord does not regard this sin as murder. That would be a tortured reading of the statement. It’s more reasonable to believe that Elder Nelson was just making an observation, that those who commit sin, especially this one, do so “without full understanding.” After all, who has full understanding? Can you judge anyone as having full understanding? If so, who do you think fits that category? You didn’t make any argument that “So far as is known” changes the meaning of the statement. That’s good because if an apostle says “so far as is known” he’s giving the best knowlege we have about the mind and will of the Lord. |
Jettboy and MC, are you guys saying that abortions in cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in jeopardy (example, pregnant 12 year olds and ectopic pregnancies) should not be legally allowed? |
In response to John Mansfield’s request for evidence that free birth control drastically reduces abortions– http://news.yahoo.com/study-free-birth-control-leads-fewer-abortions-210623724.html Pretty basic study with obvious results. If you want to drastically reduce abortions, here’s how you do it. Or you can just sit on your bum and hope the Supreme Court eventually overturns Roe v. Wade. But how many years–and innocent unborn children–are going to pass away before that happens? I wouldn’t be surprised if “Obamacare,” which provides for free birth control in many cases, does more to reduce abortions than decades of fighting against Roe v. Wade has ever done. |
I think you’re right Tim. We have wasted enough time and effort on abortion prohibition. It’s like trying to criminalize adultery. Let’s focus our efforts on something productive for a change. |
Bookslinger, Please do me the favor of reading my last comment. I think you will find I have already answered your question. |
MC, thanks for your thoughtful response to my question. Like you and your family, me and my wife personally believe in abortion only in the rarest of cases (rape, incest, life of the mother) and would encourage people in every other case to choose life (if asked). But, I don’t think its right for me (or anyone)to impose my beliefs on others when it comes to these very personal matters. And there are so many very specific circumstances that cannot be left up to the government to decide. |
MCQ, I forget who it was, maybe Steve EM, who said that fanaticism leads to apostasy. In one case in the ‘nacle, maybe 7 years or so ago, that turned out to be true, the guy who went off the rails in his fanaticism eventually stopped believing. I assume it was because the church eventually didn’t live up to his extreme positions. It’s one thing to be stubborn and strict in applying the commandments. But I agree with you about JB going off the rails. |
So I guess you’re talking about Jettboy being the fanatic? I think we’ve seen his craziness from a lot of different sides over the years, but I’ve never thought of him as anything close to apostate–until now. |
Since Roe v. Wade is such an abominable piece of judicial decision-making, and has turned Supreme Court nominations/confirmations into the circus that they now are, I would be happy to see it follow Dred Scott into the dustbin of history. Leave the weighing of all the issues, pro and con, in the hands of the people. We are supposed to be a nation in which laws are made by the consent of the people, not by a bevy of platonic guardians in black robes in a marble palace on Capitol Hill. Would there be some ugliness? Sure. Don’t count on Mississippi to reach a reasonable balancing point. But it would be better than the ugliness that infects so much of our law and politics today. |