08-19-2008, 04:35 AM | #21 | |
AKA SeattleNewt
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,055
|
Quote:
|
|
08-19-2008, 04:38 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
But I am curious about why, if it is not a human life, pro choice folks would even concern themselves with it. Why such pain in the process? I suspect they fully understand that there is something wrong with abortion. But I can only assume that something inside them overcomes that feeling, to the point that they don't even want to pass laws that would prevent the aborting of viable fetuses. I wonder what it is inside them that influences them to move against their better instincts. Otherwise, why such a difficult decision?
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith. |
|
08-19-2008, 04:46 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
I just think this move to prevent abortions seems inconsistent with the pro choice agenda. If it's such an important issue that it was taken before the Supreme Court, what is wrong with it? Why fight so hard for an issue with which people seem to be so uncomfortable? Is abortion wrong? Or are we just concerned about the health of the women taking advantage of this right? Is it really that big of a health issue that Obama now wants us to decrease the number? Or is the elephant in the room the unborn, viable child? And nobody really wants to think about that? These are general questions, not directed at you.
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith. |
|
08-19-2008, 04:55 AM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I don't know how to explain your other point any more clearly. I'm sure there are a few freaks out there that celebrate abortion, that lament that it's on the decline in this country. But most people recognize the fact that abortion is a difficult and painful decision, even for those who consider themselves pro-choice; and the fact that such an obscene number of abortions take place is indicative that the needs of our women are not being met. So, pretty much everybody agrees that ideally we'd have fewer abortions in this country. Or any country. |
||
08-19-2008, 04:58 AM | #25 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 471
|
Quote:
I think abortion for convenience is disgusting and immoral but because so many people disagree with me I think it should be legal before viability outside the womb (around 20 weeks). There is too large a percentage of society that feels differently from me about abortion and too large a price to pay by forcing women who want abortions underground. I personally fully support and agree with the Church's instructions to members on when abortion may be considered and I think each couple or the woman should make the decision with their doctor on when the health/safety of the mother is in danger from pregnancy or their child has no chance of survival after birth. Do you want the government involved in authorizing your decision under those circumstances? Not me. Last edited by CardiacCoug; 08-19-2008 at 05:01 AM. |
|
08-19-2008, 04:58 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
yes, it is. And that's why, I suspect, Obama doesn't like the question "at what point does a fetus obtain human rights?" There's an implicit assumption in that question.
|
08-19-2008, 05:06 AM | #27 |
AKA SeattleNewt
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,055
|
What can a POTUS really do to reduce the number of pregnancies which lead to abortion? Does he have a plan? More sex-ed? Free birth control? Is it a health care issue? I'm really not sure. With about a million abortions a year, I can't see any educational outreach really impacting that number. IMO, it's a squishy position that gives the appearance of empathy without having to really do anything.
|
08-19-2008, 05:09 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Quote:
And I agree with your assessment of the POTUS impact on the abortion issue. That's why I no longer let that issue control my vote. |
|
08-19-2008, 05:11 AM | #29 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
The church has tied itself into a bit of a knot on abortion.
One the one hand, they allow it in the case of rape or incest. On the other hand, the recent press release explaining why gay marriage is wrong called aborted fetuses "lives". What? "Life" is present in a fetus? Isn't that murder to take an innocent life? Obviously not, because tacit permission is given for rape and incest, should "murder" be desired. What are we to make of this? For one, the writer(s) of the press release has one opinion, the church another. But beyond that, I think the church is very uncomfortable with theologically labeling women who choose abortion (either as member or non-members) murderers. So, instead, it is basically a "bad thing", with very rough edges when it comes to the church's moral understanding--meaning that there really is no guiding ethical/moral principal in regard to an understanding of the fetus in the church's position. That is slightly unsatisfying. Again, who comes in with an ethically reasoned position--the Catholic Church. It seems that every area of hot moral dispute, the Catholic Church has a policy and argument. The LDS church does not. According to one writer, as I linked to before, the LDS press release against gay marriage was basically cribbed from Catholic Scholars (and therefore makes a lot more sense to Catholics than Mormons, e.g. marriage/sex is basically solely for reproduction). Another part of me tells myself that it is ok the church doesn't have an ethical position on the most important moral question of our time--abortion. After all, look at all the crazy, and since rejected, positions taken by apostles and prophets of yester-yore. If not sure, keep your mouth shut. If sure, still keep your mouth shut. If sure and everyone else is sure, keep your mouth shut. These are good policies for religious leaders. Let the people sort it out in their own lives, and look to God instead of Man for answers to these questions. It is basically worthless to look to the Church Handbook of Instructions (that only a fraction of a percent of male LDS are allowed to read) for deciding an ethical position on abortion. There is none there. So far, it has been about equivalently useful to look to LDS official press releases to come up with a reasoned, ethical position on gay marriage. We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle. |
08-19-2008, 05:31 AM | #30 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|