quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Scott, The Gospel Principle book says
quote:If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. "The only exceptions are when--
1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; 2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or 3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
"Even in these cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop [or branch president] and receiving divine confirmation through prayer"
I have a hard time believing that one could receive divine confirmation for any choice that wasn't "morally acceptable".
I have a hard time seeing how the phrase 'morally acceptable' applies to those criteria.
This isn't likely to be a productive conversation. I'm cautionary about using terms like 'morally acceptable' in regards to abortion because I don't want ANYONE to think that abortion is something that Heavenly Father actually considers...well, acceptable.
The 'acceptable' solution to two of the three situations would be for the founding reason to not occur at all. For rape and incest, given the impregnation, 'acceptable' is right out of the window. There remains only...a regrettable choice that can be made without sin after prayer, study, and counseling.
I agree that women who are in danger from their pregnancies should have access to the safest abortive procedure possible.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't weigh all forms of abortion as being one type of act, and that's what the partial birth abortion is about. If you see an abortion at 35 weeks as being the same as a menstrual extraction at 5, we've got nothing to talk about.
Who in this thread has equated the two?
If you think I have, then you haven't been reading what I've posted.
What I've said is that if, for example, a woman was at 35 weeks gestation when it was discovered that the baby had severe birth defects such that it could not survive birth, I think that partial birth abortion should be an option if doctors feel it is the safest option for the mother?
I recognize that this is an extreme case that rarely ever happens. But when it does happen, should women and doctors have the choice to use this procedure.
I would find that a far more morally acceptable choice, than, for example, a woman having a menstrual extraction because she'd slept with five guys at a party the previous week.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a hard time seeing how the phrase 'morally acceptable' applies to those criteria.
This isn't likely to be a productive conversation. I'm cautionary about using terms like 'morally acceptable' in regards to abortion because I don't want ANYONE to think that abortion is something that Heavenly Father actually considers...well, acceptable.
Morally acceptable is a term applicable to the choice not the situation.
The church handbooks are quite clear that under those circumstances, the choice to have an abortion may be acceptable in the eyes of Heavenly Father.
I'm not sure how you can understand the teaching in any other way unless you have some different definition of "acceptable". The Church (and presumable its head, Jesus Christ) accepts those reasons as valid -- i.e. they are acceptable in the eyes of the Church and Jesus Christ.
I sincerely hope you never have a daughter, wife, friend or any one you need to counsel in one of those situations. If you do, I certainly hope you could overcome your aversion to the term morally acceptable or you made twisting the knife in the wound.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where does the phrase morally acceptable or without sin appear in that definition? The main word I hear quoted is "heinous act".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
When the supreme court ruled on partial birth abortion, they talked a lot about that situation. From the articles that argued partial birth abortion should be legal, it sounded like that is exactly what drs do.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
No pooka, I posted in response to a Mormon in a discussion about Mormons political views on abortion as part of a dialog about whether the events of this election could lead more Mormons to break with the republican party. I have been specifically addressing issues raised by two posters who are known as Mormons on this board.
My post to you was to clarify my position since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I thought partial birth abortion at 35 weeks was the equivalent to menstrual extraction.
I never had any delusion that what the my Church policy would apply to any one other than its members. I am fully aware that the views of my Church are quite different from those of many other Christian Churches on this issue.
quote:Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
It may not be standard procedure but I know that this is sometimes done and that the partial birth abortion procedure is often considered preferable to other abortion methods because the baby remains sufficiently intact for a burial. I would suspect an abortion would be recommended rather than a normal delivery if their were other factors involved that would make delivery of the baby risky for the mother.
I'm fairly sure that even the Catholic church would not object to this if the fetus was confirmed dead prior to the procedure (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
In the specific example I had intended, the fetus was still alive but had confirmed birth defects that would make it impossible for the child to survive beyond birth. I think this illustrates a case in which the Mormon Church position differs from those of many other Christian Churches. If I understand correctly, the Catholic Church would not see abortion as a permissible option while the LDS church does.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm impressed with the number of topics covered in one thread.
quote:IMO, the years and/or decades it takes to learn to do things like throw someone without touching them
.
For the record, I've thrown people without touching them, and I'm no expert. I think it's all psychological, and I'm convinced that "ki" is a very useful concept for getting my body to do what I want it to do, not some sort of mystical force.
Scott, would you say that abortion in those cases is permissible, but not desirable? Because when I hear "morally acceptable" I hear the first word, not the second. I think Rabbit has a good point that banning a particular procedure is counterproductive given that it would not prevent abortions, but simply limit options. One thing I've been considering is the relative risk levels of having an abortion versus going through childbirth. It's my understanding that the risk of childbirth is higher, so there is actual benefit to the mother beyond mere convenience. I don't think that justifies abortion as birth control, but I do think it justifies leaving abortion as an option in various other cases (particularly when the mother's risk is significantly higher than normal).
As for the elections, I'm still waiting to see whether I'll get a say when the Oregon primary rolls around in May. We'll see...
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No pooka, I posted in response to a Mormon in a discussion about Mormons political views on abortion as part of a dialog about whether the events of this election could lead more Mormons to break with the republican party. I have been specifically addressing issues raised by two posters who are known as Mormons on this board.
I never presume that someone's Mormonness excuses me from communicating clearly with them, and partial birth abortion was the first mention of abortion is this thread.
It seems to me that you have the position (and I'm just describing it here) that partial birth abortion is no different from any other kind of abortion in the church's "book".
I don't agree.
But in the end we can both acknowledge that this is a medical matter and that the church demures from making definitive statements on medical issues. When one gets into areas like date rape and mental health, and how much medical intervention would be needed for a child to survive birth, it is very difficult to say what is justified or not under the church's guideline.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by "regrettable" if you don't mean the mother should feel regret.
You are using words in ways that I don't understand.
I will agree that the situations that the church has said excuse abortion are regrettable. Certainly anyone who has been raped, has a life threatening illness or an baby with extreme birth defects regrets the situation. But under those circumstances, if the Lord gives the woman his devine confirmation that she should have an abortion -- she should not regret making that choice. The choice under those circumstances is not regrettable even though the situations which lead to the choice are.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The baby can regret it. God can regret it. Speaking as Mormons.
Guilt and regret are not the same thing. I don't feel guilt for sins I have given to the Lord and repented of. But do I regret them? Maybe I shouldn't. But I'm young yet.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole problem I've got is the phrase "regrettable choice".
Yes, pneumonia is regrettable. But no choice was made. I'm fine with the situation being regrettalbe but not the choice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be regrettable that the choice was placed before one.
In that sense, is there every anything that we could not transcend regret for, through the infinite atonement? In an ultimate sense, no one should feel permanent regret for anything.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a sticky conversation because of how ambiguous the LDS Church's official position is.
Abortion is not murder under the church's current position. Women who have had an abortion for one of the three reasons above are eligible for temple recommends. Both of these positions are made clear in the Church Handbook of Instructions. Indeed, the handbook also makes clear that church discipline or ecclesiastical counseling is not necessary for women who have had abortions for one of those reasons.
However, it's also clear that abortion for a reason other than one of those three is considered grounds for such action. So, it's unclear exactly what the 'sin' of abortion is. It's not what it does to the fetus; otherwise, it's hard to see why such exceptions above are acceptable. Rather, it seems to have to do with the nature of the woman's choice.
It's also worth noting that popular Mormon belief (as represented by 3 Nephi 1:13 and Saturday's Warrior, in which a woman miscarries, and the pre-existent spirit, who had not yet entered the fetus, is simply assigned to another body) until the 1980s was that a spirit did not enter the fetus until birth. This began to change (to the extent it has, which is also unclear) I think, with the growing participation of Mormons with the religious right - which itself did not began activism on abortion until the 1980 election.
The Catholics are the ones with a truly consistent and clear position on abortion - indeed, they were the first to began activism against it.
edit: changed an awkward 'positions' to 'reasons.'
posted
Tammy - the Mormon God is one who feels emotions like regret and sorrow; see, for example, here .
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it outrageous to cite Saturday's Warrior as an authoritative source on Mormon Doctrine.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, he feels emotions and regrets. I just don't think that he feels them in the same way that we do.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it's also clear that abortion for a reason other than one of those three is considered grounds for such action. So, it's unclear exactly what the 'sin' of abortion is. It's not what it does to the fetus; otherwise, it's hard to see why such exceptions above are acceptable. Rather, it seems to have to do with the nature of the woman's choice.
Is this really any different than the Mormon position on Murder. A person who commits murder is excommunicated from the LDS church with no chance for rebaptism yet someone who kills in self defense, or in a war, or as an accident or under command from God (Nephi) is considered innocent of any sin. Clearly our intentions matter in the site of the Lord.
A person is just as dead if you ran them over in a crosswalk as if you shot them to take their wallet. From the point of view of the victim, they are the same. Yet we as we understand it, God does not consider these to sins the same.
[ February 11, 2008, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He didn't cite it as a source of doctrine but as an example of popular belief.
Yes, but some how the way he included it along with a scriptural citation really rubbed me the wrong way.
The seeming inability of many Mormons to distinguish doctrine from culture is one of my pet peeves. I had an argument with a member one time about whether there was a donkey in scriptures describing Christ's birth. They insisted that the story of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem and then to Egypt was in the Bible. Even when I showed them it wasn't in either Matthew or Luke, they persisted in arguing that I just hadn't found the right verse yet.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit - I'd say that someone who kills in a war is not, strictly doctrinally speaking, committing murder; or indeed, is even committing sin. So, I think we're more or less in agreement. Abortion, like murder, is relative, dependent on context. What it _is_ is less important than why we do it.
And dkw's right about my use of Saturday's Warrior. It's not doctrine, but it's a rich, rich grist mill for religious culture and pseudo-theology. I know a lot of folks whose primary theological ideas about the pre-existence, for example, are based on it.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And dkw's right about my use of Saturday's Warrior. It's not doctrine, but it's a rich, rich grist mill for religious culture and pseudo-theology. I know a lot of folks whose primary theological ideas about the pre-existence, for example, are based on it.
So do I which is why its one of my pet peeves.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, it's kind of silly, but we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more. No one** in Trinidad and Tobago has heard of Saturday's Warrior and with any luck its dead enough now that they never will.
**Edited: Technically I guess I'm in T&T and I've heard of Saturday's Warrior. I hope I'm the only one.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more. No one** in Trinidad and Tobago has heard of Saturday's Warrior and with any luck its dead enough now that they never will.
**Edited: Technically I guess I'm in T&T and I've heard of Saturday's Warrior. I hope I'm the only one.
As long as we can still count Johnny Lingo as doctrine, I'm happy. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I moved here day after Christmas. I'm now a professor at the University of the West Indies. Its more or less permanent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmm *ponders how to get away from negative windchills... to someplace permanently warm and tropical*
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more.
Yeah, because that sort of problem is unique to Utah.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it even possible to separate culture from doctrine? I'd be interested in reading some sort of comprehensive attempt to do that.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard Dallin Oaks (or was it Russell Nelson) speak not too long ago on how the inability of members to separate culture from doctrine is the major thing holding the church back in the world, so I hope that its not as impossible as you imply.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then I guess it's a good thing that nobody here was (as far as I can tell) making the mistake of conflating Church doctrine with Mormon culture.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, to some extent everybody who weighed in here was conflating the two. This is because the 'official' position on abortion is (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous, so people tend to read it through things like political leanings and/or pre-established feeling about abortion.
That's why it's possible to ask a Mormon question like "What does 'preside' mean?" or "Does God care if we use birth control?" and get multiple answers depending on factors like age, gender, cultural and geographical background, political affiliation, and so forth. This also applies to general authorities.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, because that sort of problem is unique to Utah.
Its not unique to Utah, but it is more prevalent there.
Oh I don't know about that, you should see some of the craziness that passes as normal in Taiwan churches.
edit: I guess the problem Utah has is that we see ourselves as the center of the church and so our false doctrines are less likely to be so, and without a general authority specifically calling a doctrine out, time simply continues to convince folks that what's wrong is right.
posted
It occured to me during the leadership meeting that while there are some cultures (as they alluded to) where men and women don't relate as equals, those are less often the cultures also dealing with pluralism and relativism. My point is not that it would be better for women to be silent and submissive, but that no culture is the one true culture to which all must aspire. There have been two near perfect cultures in recorded scripture, the city of Enoch and 1-4th century America, and we are told much less about them than the Nephalim, the Gadianton Robbers, and various other folks with problems.
But it gets back to a question about what culture actually is.
I always thought the popular doctrine was something Brigham Young said about the spirit entering the body at "quickening", c. 15-17 weeks.
I'm fine with that doctrinally, since it deals with the question of how God could allow so many spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). However, my political standpoint is based on the categorical imperative and the refusal of science to establish a point at which life begins, and until they decide such a thing, I think society should not be involved in the destruction of anything that might be a human life. In the same sense that we should not execute criminals who might be innocent.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it's a Frankish knight and Japanese samurai, I'd think the native born clause would exclude them both from running, but let's say they are born here citizens.
They're both in the military, so that's good from the point of view of electability, but I think a lot of GOP voters might shy away from an Asian president, plus he's probably Shinto, so, an animist religion will turn off the Conservative base of the party, though given Japan's view of illegal immigrants at the time, I'm sure his policies on the border would play well with the party's base.
The Frankish knight on the other hand would be strong on defense, probably a highly religious Christian, and very much interested in defending our interests abroad. He'd probably be quite wealthy, which means he'd be able to provide some of his own funding perhaps for the campaign, and I think he'd play well in the Bible Belt and the plains states.
Conclusion? I think the Samurai takes California, and the geek vote nationwide, but overall the knight is innately more electable. I'm guess the Democrats would run a wizard or mage against him in the General though. That'd be a tough one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
