Do the mighty 15 care about people, women & men?

Will they alter or massage their policy / practices regarding not naming those stillborn or spontaneously aborted?

It seems this is an extremely quiet subject in Morland even while it rages on the U.S. & worldwide scene...

Remember: Where there is no vision, the people parish...
Proverbs 29

The typical stance of the church regarding hot topics in society is to keep their lamp under a bushel until society around them changes enough that their immorality presents like a city on a hill. Then they change, without apology but with scapegoat (Brigham was a man of his time!), and pretend they were right all along.

The one time in recent history that they deviated from this and adopted an activist position was with gay marriage, and they got burned. So back under the bushel they slid the lamp, so their hands are protected from the flame.

There is enough division and diversity related to abortion that their lamp won't be noticeable for a long time.

Excellent analogies & post, TYVM Humberto!

Kinda the same as mixed-race, mixed-culture marriages, methinks.

The church must be torn on this issue.

If frozen embryos become designated as people, the church can claim them all as members on record like babies. Imagine the numbers boost when some people have 20 "kids"! The embryos would need to have blessings and probable funerals for every fertilized egg. They would need to be put on the genealogy. Busy busy busy!

OTOH, how will it look when all the fertilized eggs are named Pat because no one knows the gender yet? Even the vast majority that will never survive are people who lived and died, right?

Everyone should get a tax credit for a dependent for every frozen embryo.

Then there is the unpleasant task of determining if there was a fertilized egg that was sloughed off in the mother's monthly cycle. Did she do something to "murder" it? Or, did God murder it? Isn't it God who is in charge of miscarriages and the "spirits coming down"? We need justice for these killers!

Imagine if the lawmakers who believe personhood starts at conception get the law changed in their favor. If the church goes with the "first breath" scripture to count as a person, there would be another conflict with the law they would have to dance around like gay marriage.

Oh the conundrum.

It's all so stupid and intrusive, but also frightening.

That's what happens when people formulate moral laws based on biology they do not understand.

Thank heaven we now understand everything about biology.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank heaven we now understand everything about
> biology.

Do we?

Just asking, not arguing.


PS: If you say you were being facetious I'll feel like an idiot - big duh...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2024 06:39PM by Nightingale.

Irony?

Am I the sort who would engage in IRONY???

I just remember when churches came down on abortion the last time. I think that might be about 20-30 years ago. The Mormons got attacked by the other churches for allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, and teen and pre-teen pregnancies. What seems like a sensible approach was still anathema to the other "born again" entities. I suspect their take on this remains the same, but are kept under wraps. It's probably like cremation, a practice that is always taught at local levels as wrong, but at church level is so okay that the Holy Handbook gives instructions on how to handle both cases of traditional burial and cremation.

    At a missionary conference in late 1966, I asked the visiting 'person' what the church's stance was on abortion.  (I have zero recollection regarding the man's name or rank, but if it helps, he was White...)

    He responded that mormons needed to plan on having a family.  When I pointed out that this didn't seem to be a complete answer to my question, he said it should be...

    My interpretation, which I didn't say out loud so he could neither approve nor disapprove, was that if a husband and wife thought the timing was 'wrong,' abortion was an option, so long as they planned on welcoming spirits to earth...

    According to what I've found Online, the church opposes abortion for "Personal or social convenience..."  

    But if a Lady Elder gets her mission call and then aborts a very recent pregnancy, isn't she doing it so that she can serve the Lord?

    Anyway, I've never had an abortion and cannot fathom ever desiring one.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/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:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
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 automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process."

    What if "Society" thought unborn children deserved court-appointed attorneys to advocate for their rights?

    What about the fertilized eggs cryogenically frozen and stored for contingency purposes?

They've gotten themselves in another hypocritical pickle.

They say the Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when pregnancy results from rape or incest.

But they also teach men are punished for their own transgressions, and not the sins of others.

So, if the fetus is a person resulting from a rape, it will be punished for the sin of the father.

Go figure.

The woman's choice over a fetus sure needs a lot of workarounds.

That's a point I was tempted to make earlier. But as you know, I always shy away from controversy.

Now that the door is open, however, allow me to belabour (tip of the hat to NG) your point. If one believes life begins at conception, any intentional termination of pregnancy is murder even if the fetus is not ultimately viable just as surely as it is homicide to kill an elderly person whose life is becoming unviable due to natural processes.

The fetus will be born into a short and painful life? Killing it would be murder.

The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest? Killing the fetus would be murder.

The mother's life is endangered? Why is her life more valuable than that of the fetus who has exactly the same claim to life?

The truth is that very few pro-lifers dare follow the logic of their rhetoric. If they did, they would picket the offices of any politician who proposed to allow abortion in any conceivable circumstances.

Uncomfortable with that? Then you're not genuinely pro-life and should wake up and figure out what you really believe.

Yes. It's a giant mess.

If they insist that life begins at conception they are creating all kinds of problems for themselves.

If they insist that an unborn fetus is equal to a full grown woman, they are creating all kinds of problems for themselves.

If they insist that embryos are fully human, I can't even list all the problems they are creating.

The people who feel the need to decide this for other people are usually the same people who don't seem to care one bit about saving lives related to gun violence and poverty. They are not "pro life" IMO, they are pro control of women.

+Yup

    Yeah, Friends of the Fetus said that they would spare no expense to support the Rights, Powers, & Privileges of Fetii EVERYWHERE!!!

    Then, some TV journalists started asking about what they'd do for all the fetuses they'd saved when they came to term...

    FOTF said they were only advocating for fetuses and that once they were born, they were on their own, so the fetii's best bet was making friends with one or both of their parents.

    When epithets such as "short-sighted" (one FOTF committee person thought she was being called short-sided and yelled that her mu-mu was floor length!) and "one-dimensional" were hurled at them, they disbanded on the spot, which is why you don't hear from then of late.

    The situation remains dire for "forced-birth" babies!  They can't vote, they're mostly unemployed . . .

Are you suggesting that FOTF™ members are fetid?

Or would that be foetid?