Catholics Don't.

Mormons, per the handbook just reserve the right to choose who gets to have an abortion and under what circumstances. Catholics say it is wrong, no matter what.

How convenient for Leaders who find out the daughter is expecting...

Abortion is a woman's right.

If she keeps the baby, she deals with it the rest of her life.

If she gives it up for adoption, she deals with that the rest of her life.

If she aborts it, she deals with that the rest of her life.

The father can opt out of the whole deal just by paying money.

Abortions is legal, as it should be.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

"I'm not sure what the point of your post is." ... me neither.

mormons are obeying the law???

Abortion legality should be questionable since tax payers have been having to pay for them. I don't want to be taxed for someones error. And then there is the question of the rights of the unborn, if we as a government should kill the innocent, if all men are created equal under the law.

It's a tricky logic.

>>Abortion legality should be questionable since tax payers have been having to pay for them. I don't want to be taxed for someones error.

The government is not paying for it with your tax money, Maca. They're paying for it with MY tax money, because I'm completely cool with paying for it.

I'm betting that the government pays for a lot of things that you disagree with, not just abortions.

The only taxes that ever fund abortion are only in the cases of rape, incest or the danger to the life of the mother. Otherwise, no tax dollars fund abortions.

That's a pretty tacky way to put it, too... someone's "error". I would much rather pay for an abortion than see a child being raised in a hellish environment because he or she didn't have parents who were prepared to raise them. And either way, abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than child raising is.

Regardless, women should have the right to determine when they are ready to be pregnant. It's no one else's business.

> I would much rather pay for an
> abortion than see a child being raised in a
> hellish environment because he or she didn't have
> parents who were prepared to raise them.

+1,000

In my career as an urban teacher, I've seen far too many children raised in hellish environments. I wish the "right to lifers" would take at least as much of an interest in poor, living children as they do the unborn.

None of them give a damn what happens to the child after her birth.

I sort of agree.

So, like you, if asked to perform an abortion, I will refuse to do it!

Let us pledge to be neither aborters nor abortees! It's absolutely the least we can do for our brothers, the women!!!.

How do you reconcile this statement:

> then
> there is the question of the rights of the unborn,
> if we as a government should kill the innocent, if
> all men are created equal under the law.


With the sentiment you expressed this morning when you said:


"The soul obviously enters at birth, because two souls can't occupy the same space (mother and womb), that just wouldn't make sense. We are all separate creatures living in separate space."



> It's a tricky logic.

Yes, it clearly is "tricky logic."

I noticed that as well, except that the two posts were made only five minutes apart (this one, 6:09 PM; the other, 6:14 PM).

'Tis a puzzlement.

And why assume that abortions are only for errors? There are many, many reasons one might NEED an abortion.

Any man who fathers a child and refuses to support it should be castrated. Take action against the men not the women!

Just kidding but trying to get the point across. Why do they want to control a women’s body and not men’s?

Since Catholics and Mormons and other religious groups ignore incest and rape perhaps the offenders should be dealt with and leave the women alone.

Just my humble opinion formed by personal history.

My first thought was, "at least Catholics take a stand, whereas mormons are typically wishy-washy."

With mormons, rules exist so that the righteous can find needed exceptions. An argument could be made that mormonism is all about splitting hairs so that more saints can weasel their way into a temple recommend.

WE HAVE A WINNER!


elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My first thought was, "at least Catholics take a
> stand, whereas mormons are typically
> wishy-washy."
>
> With mormons, rules exist so that the righteous
> can find needed exceptions. An argument could be
> made that mormonism is all about splitting hairs
> so that more saints can weasel their way into a
> temple recommend.

True story: during the mission, I got to ask a GA a direct question after a missionary conference. My question was, essentially, "What the church's stance on birth control and abortion?"

His answer was, "All that matters is that you have a family. Once you do, whether or not 'birth control' or 'abortion were part of the process is meaningless."

I don't remember the GA's name and I've never heard this logic repeated.

He was speaking as a man.

Ah, Gladys, how typing that must have stung, despite EXMOs knowing full well that 'mormon priesthood' is right up there with the God Particle.

Not at all, Jesus. I wrote it from the basement to protect against lightning bolts and consequently am still here!

Lemons doing okay?

My lemons have pruned...

I guess TMI was inevitable given the course of the thread. . .

>>Catholics say it is wrong, no matter what.

It should be noted that while that is the official stance of the Catholic church, there are many Catholics who disagree with that. Catholics are not afraid to disagree with official church policies.

I will say that the Catholic church's policy is consistent -- the church also does not support euthanasia nor the death penalty.

JoeSmith666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Catholics Don't.
>
> Mormons, per the handbook just reserve the right
> to choose who gets to have an abortion and under
> what circumstances. Catholics say it is wrong, no
> matter what.
>
> How convenient for Leaders who find out the
> daughter is expecting...


Most Catholic leaders don't have daughters, because little boys don't get pregnant.

Ouch!

I've always found it ironic that that the biggest opponents of abortion are often the biggest supporters of war - in both scenarios, a person dies and not by their own choice.

I believe Americans are supposed to have "Equal Protection" under the law. Right?

We currently have laws that say EVEN IF someone needs a kidney and you are the ONLY person whose DNA is a perfect match, you cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save them.

EVEN IF we are only talking about a pint of blood to save a life, if YOU don't want to give it, no one can take it or force you to give it.

If an American pregnant woman who does not believe in God wants to end her pregnancy, why should we defy the equal protection for her that keeps her from being forced to use her entire body for 9 months, when someone else is allowed to refuse to give blood to save someone's life even though that would take just a few minutes and very little discomfort?

If she does believe in God, she should follow her conscience.
But it's her choice.

I'm not sure what a belief in a deity has to do with abortion. What if the doctor finds the fetus is dead? What if the fetus has no brain? What if continuing a pregnancy means that the mother will die? What does a belief in a deity have to do with any of that?

> EVEN IF we are only talking about a pint of blood
> to save a life, if YOU don't want to give it, no
> one can take it or force you to give it.

It's not like she had no ability to prevent the pregnancy and played no part in causing it to happen. She made a choice and choices have consequences. With that said, this is a tough situation without an obvious right answer and the woman shouldn't be shamed anymore than the man should be shamed, and not at all, at that for either of them. But the decision shouldn't stop at the comparison of a non-applicable example. In the examples given, a person who is asked to share their body or a part of their body, can't be expected to be responsible for causing the need for them to do so. That is not the case with a pregnancy. Come-on here, simple answers based on non-critical thinking (examples that don't apply) seems to be the mormon way to get out of taking responsibility the easiest way by using flawed logic.

Someone at a St. Joseph's hospital in Phoenix authorized an abortion to save the mother's life. As a result, the Catholic church removed themselves from their affiliation with the hospital. A Catholic friend of mine jokingly said "we just call it Joe's hospital now". I am not sure how that ended up being resolved. No easy blanket answer can cover all situations. I wouldn't trust mormon church leaders to make the decision either.

I think that if the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't, that the man should have the legal right to compel the woman to have the baby as long as he alone is responsible for the baby then afterward, or until he can find a couple to legally adopt. The desire to escape shame by itself, is not a valid reason to take an innocent life. If the unborn baby is to be killed as a means to put an end to the feelings of guilt or exposure that either parent might feel, that's the wrong choice. There are more couples out there wanting to adopt babies than there exists, an adequate supply of babies to adopt. So it looks to me like at least some or perhaps most abortions are done not to put an end to the emotional or financial hardships that could end up burdening the child, but to hide and terminate the guilt and shame that the parents might feel throughout the course of child's lifespan, if the baby is allowed to live and maybe even look them up some day. Aborted babies don't come around some day asking uncomfortable questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 06:38PM by azsteve.

> I think that if the woman wants an abortion and
> the man doesn't, that the man should have the
> legal right to compel the woman to have the baby

Hah! You really thought that through, didn't you.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I think that if the woman wants an abortion and
> > the man doesn't, that the man should have the
> > legal right to compel the woman to have the
> baby
>
> Hah! You really thought that through, didn't you.

Yes... "as long as he alone is responsible for the baby then afterward, or until he can find a couple to legally adopt. The desire to escape shame by itself, is not a valid reason to take an innocent life. If the unborn baby is to be killed as a means to put an end to the feelings of guilt or exposure that either parent might feel, that's the wrong choice. There are more couples out there wanting to adopt babies than there exists, an adequate supply of babies to adopt. So it looks to me like at least some or perhaps most abortions are done not to put an end to the emotional or financial hardships that could end up burdening the child, but to hide and terminate the guilt and shame that the parents might feel throughout the course of child's lifespan, if the baby is allowed to live and maybe even look them up some day. Aborted babies don't come around some day asking uncomfortable questions".

You left some of it out.... kind of like removing the word "not" from someone's words to change the meaning of what they said.

Not quite.

You just said that there are circumstances in which a woman must surrender her physical autonomy and health to a man. Nothing you said after that matters.

You won't understand that point--your misogynistic disregard for individual liberty here blinds you as surely as your related disdain for people's constitutional rights--but other posters will see what is going on.

A woman doesn't ever need to surrender her autonomy to a man ever, but to the law. Some good laws may still need to be written. If a man comes from home from work one day and decides to kill their children because he doesn't want to be a parent anymore, should he be allowed to do it? Is he surrendering his autonomy to a woman if he chooses not to kill her children? Women and men should be treated equally and should be compelled by law to act responsibly. Claims of misogyny or liberty don't condone murder. And I am quite sure I am right about the shame issue as the motive for the murders. With so many good couples wanting to adopt, what else could it be? please elaborate or be proven wrong for staying silent about this most critical question. If they kill the child before birth, the child won't be knocking on their door twenty years later. A few months of inconvenience alone is a small price to pay otherwise. It's not about a few months of inconvenience to carry the child to term. Anyone who says that's what it is about is lying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 07:36PM by azsteve.

living, breathing child =/= fetal mass of cells


The late-term abortions that religious rubes are whipped into a permanent frenzy about rarely take place:

"The majority of abortions in 2016 took place early in gestation: 91.0% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.2%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation."

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A woman doesn't ever need to surrender her
> autonomy to a man ever, but to the law.

There it is again. There are no right inherent in the individual, only in the state.


-------------
> Some good
> laws may still need to be written.

Laws that accord with the constitution, right? Because the constitution is above the law. And if the constitutional jurisprudence gives a woman the right to control her own body, the state may not legitimately deprive her of it.

Or is the state supreme and untrammeled by republican and libertarian niceties?


-----------
> If a man comes
> from home from work one day and decides to kill
> their children because he doesn't want to be a
> parent anymore, should he be allowed to do it? Is
> he surrendering his autonomy to a woman if he
> chooses not to kill her children?

Hah. The constitutional jurisprudence recognizes the right of the individual over his or her own body but it does not grant anyone the right to kill another.

Is that distinction too abstruse for you?


------------------
> Women and men
> should be treated equally and should be compelled
> by law to act responsibly.

Does a woman have the right to tell you to carry her baby to term? Because that is biologically possible. So are you willing to follow your logic to its conclusion and acknowledge that a woman should be able to foist the carrying of the child on you?


-----------------
> Claims of misogyny or
> liberty don't condone murder.

You are saying abortion is murder?


----------------
> And I am quite sure
> I am right about the shame issue as the motive for
> the murders. With so many good couples wanting to
> adopt, what else could it be? please elaborate or
> be proven wrong for staying silent about this most
> critical question. If they kill the child before
> birth, the child won't be knocking on their door
> twenty years later. A few months of inconvenience
> alone is a small price to pay otherwise. It's not
> about a few months of inconvenience to carry the
> child to term. Anyone who says that's what it is
> about is lying.

Will you carry the child to term? "A few months of inconvenience" is all it's costs, after all. And if you refuse because it is inconvenient, you are "lying."


----------------
It's utterly amazing that someone could grow up in the United States and have no sense of individual liberty and constitutional governance.

All hail the supremacy of the state.

Well, we all know who Lot's Wife really is. When she wants to steal from someone, she is a 'freedom fighter'. When she does not want to be responsible for her actions, she is capable of murder. When she wants to be right in an arguement, she accuses the other person of racism or mysogeny. When you call her on any of this, she talks about the constitution as though she really understands it and that it allows any possible liberty, no matter how the specific actions effect others. What a broken person.


Lot's Wicked Witch of RFM
----------------------------------
> I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too.
https://youtu.be/PW_02k7LRMo

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 09:47PM by azsteve.

I'll take that as meaning that no, you are not willing to cede the control over your own body that you want the state to take from women.

Thanks for making my point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 10:11PM by Lot's Wife.

I have no difficulty in acknowledging the attraction this "it's my baby, too" fantasy has for some people. I don't agree with it, but I think I understand it.

I think it's on a par with, "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out of it if you don't do as I say!" Lots of "I'm the boss of you!" exists.

...and, "I paid for you college degree so you owe me, biggly!"

...Professor Higgins at one point felt Ms. Doolittle owed him, also biggly.

Yes, I get that in the first two, a cellular debt can be implied, but the parents of a child whose heart was transplanted into another child do not have any say about the recipient child's future.

But I recognize that we're always just one clever campaign for a State Proposition away from me being branded an outlaw.

Y'all do what you want to.

He won't get it. Sometimes your subtlety vitiates your message.

"That's what she said!"

"the man should have the legal right to compel the woman to have the baby"

Are there *any* circumstances by which a woman could compel a man to have a vasectomy against his will?

---

"as he alone is responsible for the baby then afterward, or until he can find a couple to legally adopt"

But suppose he stalls, delays and refuses to make a commitment to the baby all through the pregnancy? What if he hasn't found his adopting couple after eight months? Is it then OK to have the abortion, or is the prospective unwilling mother screwed yet again?

Commitment is commitment. Statutes that effect personal conduct are designed to be fair and to prevent game playing by any party. The man either decides per a prescribed set of rules or he loses any rights he may have otherwise had. Nature doesn't always make it possible for everything to be equal. It can't. But governments come as close as possible to creating fairness. Is it government oppression to force a man to pay child support? No. Constitutional arguements on some issues are rediculous and naive. Typically the women end up raising the kids more often while the men typically end up paying for everything more often. But it doesn't have to be that way, except where nature doesn't reasonably allow a man to bare children.

> Statutes that effect personal
> conduct are designed to be fair
> and to prevent game playing by
> any party.

Segregation laws, poll tax laws, anti-miscegenation laws, property red-lining laws...

Do da name Ruby Begonia ring a bell? How about Jim Crow?

What did I miss?


Steve lives in Readers' Digest Land!

Are you saying elderolddog that because the laws are not perfect, that moral action and legal compliance and struggle to improve the laws that govern us are all unworthy pursuits? Do we just look out for ourselves and to hell with the innocent because we don't always get fair treatment ourselves either? What part of selfishness is not prevailing here?

As a male, I accept the position that I have no say about what any woman does to or with her body. This includes sex workers. As a realist, I accept that bossy people may feel the need to pretend that life is an HOA and they’re on the Board.

My reaction above was to what I considered to be your very Pollyanna-ish view of governments running people’s lives.

You want things a certain way, you want labels on people and like any good HOA board member, you want things brought into compliance ASAP. And there aré probably more of your kind than the loosey-goosey people with whom I am more comfortable. Like that wetback, Gladys Lott...

Later we’ll let SC count the votes to see who “won”.

You do realize that women can still die in childbirth, right? And when a pregnant woman seeks medical care, it’s her name on the hospital bill, not the man’s. And sometimes women get pregnant because of rape and incest, not because of a bad choice...

But what really is sad to me is the idea of a baby being born as a “consequence” of a bad choice. My mom repeatedly told me, when I was a little girl, that she hadn’t expected to get pregnant with me and was very “upset” that she was. She was married to my father and had three much older daughters who feel more like aunts to me. I went through years of depression and anxiety and yes, wishing I hadn’t been born. It would have spared us both a lot of pain.

Babies should never be referred to as consequences of choices. They should be wanted and loved, born to people who are prepared to raise them. I was fortunate that everything did turn out fine in the end, but a lot of children aren’t as fortunate. Once you’re born, you have a concept of life and death and good and bad. Developing fetuses don’t have any such knowledge.

I am going to strip out the personal details and leave the universal moral principles.

> What really is sad to me is the idea of a baby
> being born as a “consequence” of a bad choice.

> Babies should never be referred to as consequences
> of choices. They should be wanted and loved, born
> to people who are prepared to raise them.

It is difficult to make those points any more forcefully than you just did. Thank you, knotheadusc.

It looks like someone is trying to sidestep the issue. It's not the child that is the 'consequence'. It's the hospital bill and other bills and other associated issues that you speak of, that are the result of the untimely pregnancy. The discussion wasn't being honest when everyone spoke of the child as though an execution would be preferable over the child's having life struggles. No one needs to tell the child that they were unwanted. As I said, there are more couples wanting to adopt than there are available babies to adopt. To tell the child that they were unwanted is just more abuse and lack of love. It is not necessary. So let's get real about this issue. Abortion is for the benefit of the parents. It comes out of parents not wanting to take responsibility. It's about the shame and selfishness of adults who refuse to grow up or to be honest. If the parents are not capable of loving an innocent child, they can easily find a line of vetted people just waiting to love the child. But an execution of the innocent is not the preferable path. It's the selfish path. There is no valid arguement in today's United States that says otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2020 12:21AM by azsteve.

You keep saying the quiet part out loud, azsteve. But by all means keep going!

--LW, honorary illegal alien writing in response to the rugged individualist who no longer suckles on the public teat

I have never met a single person who remembers being in the womb. Developing fetuses are not conscious and have no concept of life and death. Babies who are born to parents who aren’t ready to be parents will live with that reality forever, even if they are adopted. And there is also no guarantee that they will be adopted by people who are loving and decent, either.

Case in point, my husband’s ex wife— born to a married woman who’d gotten pregnant due to an affair. Her husband didn’t want to raise another man’s child, so she was forced to choose between putting her baby up for adoption or getting a divorce. She chose to put my husband’s ex up for adoption.

Ex was adopted, but her adoptive mother didn’t let her meet her adoptive father until she was seven years old. Adoptive dad was a Merchant Marine who was out at sea a lot. While he was gone, adoptive mom had an affair, got divorced, and married the guy she was screwing around with. She later got pregnant with a baby from that guy, Ex’s stepfather.

Stepfather later molested my husband’s ex wife, but left his bio daughter alone. Adoptive mom turned a blind eye to all of it and basically lived on child support, odd jobs, and horning her way into her adult children’s homes. When she died, Ex reportedly had her cremated and shoved the box of ashes in a closet somewhere. After her mom’s death, Ex later found a loaded gun brought into her house by her “loving” adoptive mom, who had manipulated her way into Ex’s home, even though Ex still has minor children, one of whom has severe autism and will never be able to live independently.

If you have read my stories on this board over the years, you might know how much pain and damage this woman has wrought to so many people, some of whom have never even met her. Many of her issues stem from a horrible childhood which started with two people who weren’t prepared to be parents having a baby they didn’t want, and then that baby being adopted and raised by someone even more fucked up than they were.

I realize that your mind is made up about this issue. But you are living in a fantasy world if you think adoption is always a better alternative to abortion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2020 01:23AM by knotheadusc.

You didn't answer a single question or address any of the issues I raised. Not one.

I suppose that you were answering the questions I *should* have asked.

Because, like you, I have made up my mind about this issue. Fortunately, access to abortion is not something that will ever affect me personally, but as far as I can tell, access to abortion is a human right. Taking it away has multiple ripple effects on innocent people. That is my story and I’m sticking to it.

Good night to you. Time for me to start the day.

I was replying to azsteve, not you. For the record, I agree with your position.

Oops! Sorry about that.

Mormons believe in (most) Anything that suits them at the moment, Nothing New on that one, is there?

He has a valid observation, the official doctrine of the church is closer to pro-choice than many other religions. Most members views on abortion are probably more conservative than the actual LDS doctrine. To my knowledge the church has never sponsored sponsored or encouraged protestors outside of a planned parenthood centers. Not everything is black and white.