I don't understand how LDS Inc. indoctrinates people so hard (pun intended) about "the sacred procreative powers" and makes sex into some kind of magically metaphysical experience instead of simply a physical experience.

Then they sanction abortion.

It simply makes no sense to me unless it is all about sex for LDS inc. and its Board of Directors.

Seriously, IF that zygote is a soul (I have no belief in souls) they just sanctioned killing it. But murder is nothing new to these guys. They are the ones promoting the book literally dripping fictional blood called the Book of Mormon. Blood Atonement anyone? Past purveyors of polygamy. It is all about sex for men well past an age where disregarding their on Word of Wisdom makes old men into sexually dysfunctional old men.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1995/10/eternal-laws-of-happiness?lang=eng
" 6.

“Thou shalt not kill.” 18 We are created in the image of God. 19 The union of the flesh with the spirit can bring us a fulness of joy. 20 Teach your children to respect the sanctity of human life, to revere it and cherish it. Human life is the precious stepping-stone to eternal life, and we must jealously guard it from THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. 21" Emphasis mine.

Seriously? If your theology has something to say about "jealously" guarding human life "from the moment of conception" then killing a fetus is killing that life you are supposedly supposed to be guarding.

But like most things Mormon they have their cake and they get to eat it as well. I guess they figure that life at its conception unfortunate to be in one of their killing clauses just gets thrown back into their pre-existence pool and their god is cool with a spiritual as well as physical abortion. They have to wait a little longer to get a body and most people born aren't born Mormon so it isn't like a big deal since they will have to wait a long time before their posthumous baptism will be performed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 08:28PM by Elder Berry.

For some women, abortion is the right choice.

Church or no church, it is a legal option.

Speculation on early leadership condoning abortion, I've never seen it 'sanctioned' in the modern lds church outside of rape or incest.

Some LDS doctors perform abortions, but that's delegated morality; in these cases, the person requesting it, not the person performing it, is morally culpable. Every religious adherent makes trade-offs like this, as there are very few monolithic cultures left in today's society.

Alpiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speculation on early leadership condoning
> abortion, I've never seen it 'sanctioned' in the
> modern lds church outside of rape or incest.

Yeah, but this is sanctioning it. They also don't sanction women wearing more than one earring per ear.

It is a primary example of Mormonism being a business and not a belief system in my opinion. That is the best explanation I have for them and their handling of their "sacred powers."

I pulled up the handbook on WikiLeaks just to see what the official doc had to say. Here's what it states:

"The Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not...kill not do anything like unti it". The church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. members must not submit to, perform, pay for, arrange for, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
1. Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. 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 justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Church members who submit to, perform, pay for, arrange for, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline.

As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion."

I was somewhat surprised to see that performing an abortion is a no-no here.

In any case, I don't see how the church is sanctioning abortion. Narrow exceptions to a blanket condemnation doesn't constitute sanctioning, in my opinion.

If life is beyond the here and now and these people think that they can create policies around what life survives conception and what doesn't based on their policies I see it as sanctioning something.

If they can determine the "righteous" way to be conceived and allowed to be born and who doesn't get born when it meets certain of their criteria then they claim a power that is godlike.

The least these godlets good do is claim to know if homosexuality is innate.

I'm arguing LDS Inc. and its rule by policy not theology. It doesn't make sense unless LDS inc. is a scam and a con job corporation. No "religion" here in my opinion. Religions have to have theological reasons in my opinion.

I just think if you don't have a uterus you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter. If you're worried about abortion, by all means, have a vasectomy.

Tacking in a somewhat different direction--

As long as men are expected to provide for the child should it be brought to term, they can be expected to desire a voice regarding its abortion.

It fundamentally violates the notion of equality that women may place men under burden (via court-ordered child support) as the result of a decision (whether or not to bring the child to term) that the man had no say in.

I will agree with your statement that men are not entitled to an opinion -- when they are no longer impacted by the consequences of the actions on which they are opining.

This whole thread, and your response in particular REEKS of the kind of sexism that is pounded into our Mormon thinking. Women must be trusted to make decisions regarding their own bodies. It is NOT up to a man, ANY man what that decision should be. What overwhelming insecurity and fear a man must have if he thinks he has to control women in order to prove that he has power. Awful, just freaking awful. And since I left my father's home, no man has supported me financially in any way, so your wallet and the wallet of any poor whiny man is safe, so just relax.

You apparently either failed to read my response or decided to infer something that was not there.

My point is, and continues to be -- as long as it is legal (for the female population at large, and not you specifically) for women to place men under burden via child support, men may be expected (both because the child represents their progeny *and* out of rational self-interest in being compelled to provide for the child) to desire an opinion as to whether or not an abortion takes place.

Women are fully entitled to control their own bodies, provided that choices they make do not have downstream consequences. When it does, those whom it impacts may be reasonably assumed to have an opinion in the manner.

I happen to agree with you that women should not be compelled one way or another. However, until men are free of the same compulsion, they cannot be expected to butt out.

One would think that the choice to abort would free men from this compulsion to provide for said child, so I can't understand why a given man -- who does not want to or did not plan to provide for another -- would be against it.

So if a woman chooses NOT to have a child, she needs to consult the man who knocked her up because he might NOT have to provide child support, so he should have a say in her choice? Stupid argument. I'll refer to Legally Blonde - if a man is so interested in the result of this one sperm, then his every masturbatory emission should be considered reckless abandonment.

Alpineer, you're missing a grave point here. In the first place, it is not a woman that puts a child support burden on a man. It is the state that puts an equal child support burden on both men and women. The state, that is to say, society, does it on the CHILD'S behalf, not on the behalf of either parent. The state regards the custodial parent's child support burden to be paid directly to the child in the form of care. The noncustodial parent, whether man or woman, pays the burden, in cash, to whomever is providing the child's care.

Consequently, BOTH parents assume the burden of child support when they engage in sexual intercourse that can result in the birth of a child.

However, a woman can unilaterally relieve both parents of the potential child support burden by aborting the fetus. There is no call for a man to have a "say" in a decision to abort because his child support risk arose at intercourse--an intentional act on his part.

Rich! It is true! He's got no dog in this fight.

If it is a life - whether by incest or rape - it is still a life, an innocent life. TSCC follows the polls where people make exceptions.

I'm not sorry at all for saying this, but what about the life of the girl or woman who is raped?!?!?!? Doesn't her life matter?!?!?!? I guess fucking not to a crazy fanatic like you who would punish someone to go through a traumatic pregnancy after having gone through a traumatic rape!!!!!

I agree with you "Anon for this". What about the woman that is going to leave behind her other children to continue a pregnancy that will most likely kill her? Ultimately it's up to her, but it sure isn't fair to the children to have to grow up without a mother.

Even the mo church agrees with you on this one. NO woman is expected to carry a child conceived by rape. And I agree as well.

Anon for this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sorry at all for saying this, but what
> about the life of the girl or woman who is
> raped?!?!?!? Doesn't her life matter?!?!?!? I
> guess fucking not to a crazy fanatic like you who
> would punish someone to go through a traumatic
> pregnancy after having gone through a traumatic
> rape!!!!!


If the subject in the womb is an innocent human being then choosing abortion shifts the punishment to the unborn child, which completes the violence initiated by the rapist.

The victim gets violated by the rapist and the kid gets the death penalty?

How does having that on the victim's conscience not risk even further and deeper trauma, thus adding even *more* question marks and exclamation points to the massive problem you've brought to our attention - "what about the life of the girl or woman who is raped?!?!?!? Doesn't her life matter?!?!?!?"?

Some people do not believe that a zygote is a kid. Some do.

Well, I don't believe a fetus is a child/kid.

And it always amuses me (not in a good way) when others, often men, use this rhetoric about the guilt and shame the woman having the abortion will feel. For one, if there is guilt and shame it is often because people like you tell them they have given a "kid the death penalty" and try and impose guilt and shame on them, and secondly because, uh, how about you ask some women who have had abortions what they feel instead of assuming?

I had an abortion, over 18 years ago. I have never felt any guilt, shame, remorse, or trauma from it. I can quite honestly say it is up there as one of the best decisions of my life in that it saved my life...not only did it uncover a medical issue that needed immediate attention, it saved me from being a very young parent, it allowed me to go continue my education, allowed me to figure out who I was, allowed me to meet my husband, allowed me to realize I do not want children, and so on. It really saved my LIFE in more ways than one. I would do it all over again. Sure, best if I had not got pregnant in first place, but I did, and there you have it.

I know many women like me who have no regrets or shame yet for some reason the anti-choicers never like to recognize those women. Many of my friends who have had abortions actually are also mothers, to children they had before the abortion, or afterward, and do not regret their choice at all.

This sub-thread started with the conditional, "if it is a life," to which I added the further qualification of "if ... an innocent human being."

If you don't believe that the subject in the womb is an innocent human being, then it's reasonable to conclude that a procured abortion will not result in feelings of guilt.

If you do believe that the subject in the womb is an innocent human being, then it's reasonable to conclude that a procured abortion will result in feelings of guilt.

Press Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the subject in the womb is an innocent human
> being then choosing abortion shifts the punishment
> to the unborn child, which completes the violence
> initiated by the rapist.
>
> The victim gets violated by the rapist and the kid
> gets the death penalty?
>
The person that was raped was not given a choice in the matter. Trying to shift any blame to her is wrong. It is all on the perp and he's the guilty party if she decides not to continue with a pregnancy that was forced upon her. He is the one that is punishing the innocent child by commiting the crime that created it in the first place.

Anyone who is this outspoken against abortion even in such a horrible horrible circumstance such as rape or incest needs to read about what life was like for desperate woman before birth control. I suggest Margaret Sanger's book. It describes her seeing woman after woman who were dying or horribly injuring themselves because they were trying to get rid of another pregnancy they just could not handle (after having 10+ kids) or who suffered horrible injuries because they got pregnant too often. She ended up founding planned parenthood to provide birth control to save thee womens lives!

Safe, legal abortions protect the lives of women who are already here. No one is pro-abortion but it a necessary part of life because life is not perfect. No one can tell me that the life of cells that may or may not be able to become a baby (many pregnancies end in loss) is more important than the person carrying those cells. If the mom makes a different decision then that's ok and why it's called pro-choice.

If you want to prevent abortions support easy access to reliable to birth control and womens health care. Support a culture that condemns rape and doesn't ask if the woman's skirt was too short. Support harsher penalties for rapists and sex offenders. But don't condemn women in impossible situations.

(Btw I say this as a mother and I am currently pregnant)

You are absolutely right, in rare cases, such as rape, they give permission I have been told, but they have never sanctioned it. I am an L and D RN at a hospital in the morridor and never once have I seen or even heard about an abortion performed here. The LDS Drs. will absolutely not do them, and 98% of our docs at this hospital are LDS, so no, I have never witnessed or even heard about any abortion.

Even when Romney ran for pres., he made it clear he was personally against abortion, but felt it best to leave it up to individuals. Obviously, he wanted to appeal to a broader base in hopes of winning, but he well knew what his church's position was and still is.

Alpiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every religious adherent makes
> trade-offs like this, as there are very few
> monolithic cultures left in today's society.

And I know the idea of "cafeteria style" believing is par for the course for most of the religious people I know.

I'm talking about "Prophet, Seers, and Revelators" who don't know if people are born gay but killing shortly after the moment of conception is ok as long as it meets these requirements.

I really don't understand exactly what you are saying Elder Berry. You're trying to beat down TSCC for actually doing something that makes some sense? How about beating them up for all the things where they don't budge at all?

I see nothing wrong or corporate about TSCC allowing practical and humane exceptions when it comes to abortion. Incest, rape, a non-viable fetus, and health of the mother are all humane reasons to have an abortion. Nobody should ever have to feel guilty for doing so in such a situation. As far as other reasons go, I'll leave that up to the person that has to make the decision.

I've known ladies born with heart defects that are told it is okay to get pregnant but complications come up where they find out that their pregnancy will kill them and they beat themselves up over having to end the pregnancy. There are women that have other complications due to pregnancy that they couldn't have anticipated would happen. Hard and fast rules are almost never good. There are always exceptions in life. I think that TSCC being somewhat flexible on the issue is a positive. They do plenty of horrible things, but at least they have a bit of compassion when it comes to that.

Two places where I agree with some Mormons: abortions and funerals.

I was told by an old Mormon that when a baby is aborted, the spirit bounces back to Heaven to await the next try. That of course is nonsense, but he also told me that the Mother is not to be judged. I agree. I'm sure some members do judge.

My cousin committed suicide, and the Mormons gave him a nice funeral in the chapel he'd attended as a boy. They didn't judge him from the pulpit. I appreciated that, as he was very troubled. However, much of his trouble was church related, so they don't get a complete pass.

I think the TSCC avoids political issues for tax reasons, but it is generally opposed to abortion. Members are mostly conservatives, meaning that abortions between the 4th and 300th trimester are okay if the baby is middle eastern.

I personally don't like the idea of abortion, but I also believe that it not up to ME to decide, and that women should have the option to abort.

Once I talked to a TBM who was rabidly preaching against abortion, and saying that a life is a life, and that poor, innocent foetuses desperately breathe and hang to life when we try to abort them etc etc. He was almost crying as he talked about life.

Then I reminded him that the LDS cult does allow abortion in a few cases. So I asked: a foetus resulting from rape does not breathe and does not hang to life, and thus deserves to be killed?

Then he quickly switched the focus from life to agency. It's not about life, it's about agency. A woman had her agency violated by being raped, so killing is O.K.

They can't seem to make up their minds, and change their arguments whenever it is convenient...

Then I said: so if it's about a violation of agency, what about the foetus' agency? By aborting a foetus resulting from rape, you are violating the foetus' agency too. In order to respect the foetus' agency, the baby should be allowed to be born, and at 18 years old he/she could decided for him/herself whether to commit suicide or not. Agency, agency.

Then he did not know what to say...

This is the point. And I think this is the OP's point too. Be consistent. If the issue is pro-life, and you want to cry over a fetus' right to life, there can be no rape or incest exception. A baby didn't ask to be the product of rape or incest. And no matter whom you blame, the woman or the rapist, the baby is just as dead.

Yet, to force a woman to deliver and possibly raise a child conceived of rape or incest seems so unfair. Why? Because the woman isn't culpable in that act of sex. This is why the pro-choice people can't trust the pro-life position of the pro-lifers. The pro-lifers will kill a baby, so long as the woman didn't "choose" to have sex. The suspicion is unavoidable that the real issue is controlling women's sexuality. The "punishment" of unwanted pregnancy must remain as a powerful means of controlling women's sexuality. Obviously, this suspicion is buttressed by pro-lifer's anti-contraception stance, a stance completely at odds with preventing abortion. Don't want abortion? Then make sure sex doesn't make babies. Very simple. If the actual objective is to control women's sexuality, contraception is anathema. Contraception leads directly to more sexual freedom for women, less sexual control.

Politics is the name we give to the subject of social power. Who has got the power to decide whether a woman will bear a child, will it be the woman, or someone else. If it's someone else, what's their motivation for exercising the power? Religion is a traditional method of allocating social power. People are rejecting it because of diversity. As religion loses its legitimacy as a basis for social control, and as a basis for elevating some humans into positions of power over other humans, something's got to fill the void. That something is civil rights based, as much as possible, on scientific evidence.

I once had an argument with a friend over this, he was right and I was wrong. I had some idea there was a thing called "legal murder." His point was that there is killing. Legal killing is killing. Illegal killing is what is meant by "murder."

Abortion may be killing. But it is not murder. The same way war is killing, but it is not murder. All those "Support the Troops" stickers don't say, "Support the Legal Murderers." They are known as "Heroes." Their killing is heroic. And there is no question, at all, that the people whom they kill are living human beings. Murder is simply the wrong word.

I was the result of an unplanned pregnancy too. However, if I'd been aborted, I'd have never known it.

Killing is horrific, no doubt about it. Have you seen the footage of bombings. You do know that other killing, such as warfare, rips children limb from limb, and they aren't 12 weeks old. They are truly trying to "escape" because, unlike a 12 week old fetus, those children actually know what's going to happen to them. By that token, have you ever seen a pig trying to escape from a pen after it's mate was shot before slaughter, it smells the blood and fears it's next?

My point is not that killing isn't killing. My point is that murder is a legal distinction. No matter how emotional you get about it, or how condescending to others who shed light on a different aspect of the problem.