OtterPop

jazzy, I agree that it starts in the home. You and your wife sound like devoted, involved parents. I also agree that it is best for kids to be raised by their own parents and for daycare to be minimized. But for some people, that truly is not possible. There are plenty of adults who had lousy parenting themselves who are learning as they go with their own kids. Mandating that women must carry all unwanted pregnancies to term except in a tiny percentage of cases is likely to result in more cases where you have a parent or parents who are unprepared to guide and teach their children. My understanding is that kids who have two involved parents who actually behave like parents (as opposed to friends) are much more likely to stay in school and delay sexual activity. That makes sense, because they have a sense that they are valuable and loved. It also makes sense that you see the abortion issue primarily in terms of your own family. I see it primarily in terms of woman and girls who don't have the advantages that your daughter does.

That Coca-Cola rumor is so prevalent that it's listed on the urban legend site Snopes.com.

Weirdest belief: That Mormons worship seagulls and have to have a figure of a seagull in every room of their house. Funniest belief: I heard this on another message board when someone asked this same question. One person had a friend who thought that the temple ceremony was done in the nude (we've all heard that). She'd also been told that part of the ceremony was sharing one's talents and that clogging is very popular in Mormonism . . . so part of the temple ceremony is clogging in the buff!! Still makes me giggle to think of it. Most disturbing: A friend of mine who went on a mission to Sweden before blacks could hold the priesthood was teaching a discussion with a "greenie." The investigator asked why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. The greenie was very eager to answer the question, because he "knew" the definitive answer: white people were descended from Adam, but black people were descended from apes and were thus not allowed to hold the priesthood. My friend and the investigator were horrified. Luckily, the guy's Swedish was poor. The investigator asked my friend, "Did he say what I think he said?" My friend asked, "What do you think he said?" Then he laughed at the response, made good fun of the elder's Swedish, and explained. The greenie was upset, because he knew his point was correct, because his Stake President father had taught him. My friend got him to agree not to mention it to anyone until they talked with the mission president.

Bytor, thanks for your kind words. I always enjoy discussions with you.

Fair enough. We disagree. Do you want to see the law changed to reflect your view?

Bytor, I have thought about this issue very deeply, and I don't shrink from the implications of what I believe or the policies that I think should be in force. This is not a pretty subject, but I'm willing to engage with all of it and account for my positions. I do not ignore the fact that women have sexual choices and sexual responsibilities, and that behavior causes pregnancy. The simple fact is that when you believe a man's choice alone caused a pregnancy (rape), you somehow manage to make it OK to kill a ZEF. But when a woman participated in that choice, that ZEF assumes some protection that it didn't previously have. Why? Is it a person? If so, why does the manner of conception affect its rights? If not, why do you think the government should be the arbiter of this most intimate and personal situation? You can cry "judicial fiat" all you want in relation to Roe v. Wade, but you can't escape the fact that it is the Supreme Court's role to interpret the Constitution -- and that is what they did. It is not the most cogent or consistent ruling they ever made, but it is the law. Abortion policy has, disgustingly, become little more than a lever that Republicans use to manipulate one-issue voters. They haven't even tried to seriously challenge Roe v. Wade in the past several years. You say that parents should be told of a minor's pregnancy regardless of how "rotten" they are. I'm guessing you've never known a mother who has thrown her child against a wall so many times and with such force that the child has permanent brain damage. I'm guessing that you've never discussed with a young woman her shame of having had an ongoing sexual relationship with her father because he would kick her out of the house if she didn't and she had nowhere else to go. I don't like that abortion is used so often as a form of birth control, but I think keeping abortion legal and fully available in early pregnancy is a far better policy than criminalizing abortion.

Not if you take a hard-line like Kona apparently does. Most Americans are in favor of allowing abortion in some cases.

What if she didn't have an abortion, but proceeded with radiation and chemotherapy, knowing that it would kill the baby? Would that still be murder in your eyes?

The question I posed was actually about why only pregnant women should (ideally, according to many) be compelled to sacrifice for the life of another. Why aren't people in general compelled to donate organs or blood to save the life of another person? That is the closest parallel I can think of. I accept that biology does determine one absolute difference between the sexes: women can have babies and men can't. This does result in some "unfairness" that can't reasonably be remedied through policy. (For example, that a pregnant woman can decide whether to carry the child to term, while a father can't compel that she carries it or ends the pregnancy.) I've found that few people really consider the implications of declaring the ZEF to be a person with full rights under the law. It has the possibility of creating an entire class of laws that apply only to women. Suppose a pregnant woman orders wine with dinner in a restaurant? Should she be refused because it's "bad for the baby"? Suppose she consumes beer in a park when she is pregnant. Should she be reported to child protective services, as she could be if she were giving beer to a 2-year-old? Suppose she claims that she is not pregnant. Should she be compelled to submit to a search or an examination to determine whether she is? Should a pregnant woman be detained or imprisoned to ensure the welfare of her baby? Should she be able to lose custody of the child in her womb? Then could the father assume custody? How would we know who the father is? Amniocentesis? Should the woman be compelled to have this test, which does endanger the fetus? All of these are possibilities if a ZEF is a person with full rights under the law. I know these are extreme circumstances, but hardly unimaginable, as some of them have already happened in this country. There is a long history of women being "protected" out of their rights because of their potential for childbearing.

My point is that trying to join these two points (taking responsibility and ZEFs are people) into one coherent position results in an absurdity -- that a person has the same right to life as any other person only if they were conceived through consensual sex. It makes no sense. There's also that pesky notion that a woman can reasonably be compelled to continue a pregnancy she does not want because another life is at stake -- and yet you can't compel anyone to donate an organ or even blood to save the life of another person. Why are only pregnant women required to make sacrifices to preserve the life of another person? I am absolutely opposed to policies that set requirements that apply only to one gender. Certainly there are extenuating circumstances. I can think of several compelling scenarios right now. Once you admit that there are extenuating circumstances, the question becomes who makes the decision about a pregnancy. Traditionally, the conservative view is supposed to mean less government intrusion into personal lives. But not on this issue. I don't know of anyone except truly radical pro-choice advocates who does. Some doctors assert that it is the safest option in a few cases. I have never heard an account of such a case where the abortion was not being performed for compelling reasons. If anyone else has, I would genuinely be interested to hear about it. How about if the girl's father is also the father of the baby? This is very much the exception, but it does happen. Minors sometimes find themselves in untenable situations where they have no control. (I'm a social worker. I have observed some of these untenable situations.) It is a Constitutional right, and has been for your whole life if you're under 34. If I had my druthers, no one would engage in sex at least until they were out of high school, but that's not the reality we're dealing with here.

. . . and I didn't address my question to Kona specifically.

The LDS church doesn't equate abortion to murder. The policy (posted on another thread) allows for exceptions not even just when the woman's life is in jeopardy. Why would faithful church members reject or second-guess that policy?

Vort, I have never been to Splash Mountain without getting wet. I think it is unreasonable to go to Splash Mountain and expect not to get wet. On the other hand, I have had sex hundreds of times and have never, to my knowledge, gotten pregnant. Going to Splash Mountain is not an aspect of being human that all adults must navigate. Nor is it an essential part of a typical adult's most important relationship. This shows how quickly metaphors in this debate break down and become useless. A ZEF is alive, it is human (adjective, not noun), and in at least one sense it is individual. But that does not make it the same as a person. I agree that I cannot draw a "bright line" as to when a ZEF becomes a person. However, to me it is patently obvious that a zygote is not the moral or practical equivalent of a baby. It is not a person, though it has that potential. I'm not saying that it is just a lump of tissue, either. That is much too simplistic. I would never compare it to a tumor or a parasite, both comparisons that I've heard in the past in this debate. To me, the ZEF is not without significance and it is not ordinary tissue. But neither is it a person. I know that one of the ways that birth control pills work is to prevent implantation of the egg. I have used birth control pills, as have most of my friends, many of whom are strongly pro-life. I don't personally know anyone who equates using birth control pills with having abortions, though I have encountered that idea in some radical pro-lifers. I would venture a guess that no one on this board equates using birth control pills with having abortions. Why not? If personhood begins at conception, birth control pills are morally wrong, as they result in untold numbers of murders. I am a feminist, but I do not consider pregnancy to be a punishment. Sometimes it is the literally the greatest thing in the world to the woman. Sometimes it is a devastating nightmare. But to say in the case of an unwanted pregnancy that a woman who chose to have sex must carry the baby, while a woman who was raped may legitimately have an abortion, suggests not just that pregnancy is a consequence of sex (after all, for the rape victim the pregnancy is also a consequence of sex), but that carrying a pregnancy to term is a punishment for her actions. Lastly, leaving aside the question of wartime combat, I did not think I had to explain why it is not morally acceptable to kill one person for the benefit of another, short of self defense. Do I really need to take up that question?

I've heard this scenario before in this debate, and I find it very strained. In fact, I have yet to see anyone come up with a parallel situation for the situation of a woman and a zygote/embryo/fetus. There simply is no parallel. The example implies that a woman who has consensual sex has agreed to give birth to a baby. She hasn't. She has engaged in a normal act which may lead to pregnancy, but this is hardly the same as formally agreeing to a pregnancy. A much better comparison would be to say that there is a small chance that anytime you leave your house a person you do not know who has no relationships, who cannot see, cannot hear, cannot communicate, has no discernible concept of their own existence or future, and who no one but you knows exists will be killed. This is much closer to what the truth of most abortions is. If you never, ever leave your house, this killing will never happen. But for most people, never leaving their house is not a realistic option. If you argue that a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) is the absolute equivalent to a person, it is reprehensible to grant a rape exception merely because the woman is not "responsible" for the pregnancy. I am absolutely pro-choice. I don't believe that a ZEF is the same as a person. But if I truly believed that, I would never approve of killing a person for the comfort and convenience of another person. That attitude shows a shocking lack of respect for life. It's interesting, too, that this argument absolutely sets up the idea that pregnancy is not just a natural consequence of sex, but a potential punishment for women (but notably not men) who choose to have sex. If you argue that an embryo is fully a person, you cannot reasonably support killing it unless another life is at stake.

If you truly believe that a zygote or embryo is a person in every sense of the word, how can you approve of abortion even if the conception occurred as a result of rape? That's barbaric. Yet if you accept that abortion can be appropriate in any case other than the mother's life being at risk, you acknowledge that the lives involved are not actually equivalent, which undermines the argument of full personhood at conception.

I think you may be right. I agree that he is handsome and looks very polished, and I would expect him to be more compelling than what I've seen. I think, too, that sometimes charisma can't be captured on film. I saw a documentary about Jim Jones and Jonestown. (To be clear, I am not comparing Mitt to Jim Jones.) I assume that Jim Jones had amazing charisma, as I think virtually all cult leaders do. People who followed him and survived Jonestown say he did. I just didn't see it in the film they had of him, and the clips were fairly extensive. When I saw the old TV movie with Powers Boothe as Jim Jones, I thought Powers Boothe was very compelling. Seeing his performance as Jim Jones, I could understand why people would follow him. Seeing the actual Jim Jones, not so much . . .

Bytor, I mean this as a serious question, not a slam against Mitt. I believe you when you say he is charismatic, but I don't think that has come across at all on television. Any ideas of why? Do you find him charismatic on TV?

Well, I'll bite and see if I can stay within the rules. From what I've read and seen on TV, I think Mitt is undoubtedly very intelligent. I also think we could do worse than having a successful businessman in a high political office. I suspect that in his private life and his business life he has an engaging personality and a sense of humor, because I think it's hard to be really successful without those attributes -- but I find his public persona stiff and dull. I consider Mitt to be a self-made man, although one who was given an excellent start with every possible advantage. So, we'll see if I stayed within the posting rules or not . . .

In April 2004 -- although I had thought it was Missouri, but it was actually Illinois. Illinois Tells Mormons It Regrets Expulsion - New York Times

The state of Missouri has issued an official apology to the Mormon church for the persecution in 1830s and 1840s. I have no doubt that Lilburn Boggs and many other Missourians truly hated the Mormons, but I would hardly say that that kind of hatred is alive today.

Moroni 10 does not have an "out" clause. Its message is not complex, but elegantly simple. LDS prophets have preached that the Book of Mormon is its own witness. Missionaries continue to challenge investigators to read it and find the truth for themselves. There are people who have asked, believing in Christ, with real intent who have not received a witness. LDS people put great stock in their spiritual experiences. On this board I have seen people write again and again that real Truth and guidance is found only through spiritual means. I have also seen people write again and again that we cannot depend on the testimonies of others, but must gain a testimony for ourselves. Yet that is what those of us who have had our hearts broken by the absence of a witness are told to do. And if with that broken heart and a contrite spirit we are led to answers other than what we expected, answers that don't fit into the LDS mortal understanding of God and spirit, we are told that we have fallen short, have sinned and remained unrepentant, have indulged our pride, or that we simply are not "ready" for the witness we have been promised in the BoM and across the pulpit for our whole lives. Candyprpl's pain at this dilemma is understandable, and I respect her for reflecting on these issues seriously. People like me -- those who engaged with the Book of Mormon and its promise for years without receiving even a spiritual whisper in response -- are not supposed to exist. But I do exist. It took me 12 years to finally validate my experience of the Book of Mormon and to understand it. I do exist. My spiritual experiences are real. I have learned not to try to interpret others' experience of God and spirit or to try to force them to fit into my limited, earthbound, mortal, and natural understanding of God. It's a lesson I invite you to engage with yourselves.

Originally Posted by rameumptom Alma 29:8 tells us that God gives to each nation and individual the amount of truth and light the person is prepared to receive. Not everyone is ready, and perhaps never will be ready, for the fullness of the gospel. In this instance, why would God give a person a testimony of Joseph Smith, if the person isn't ready and willing to embrace it? Better for him to give them what they need now, hoping they will someday be ready to receive more. Why would God NOT give a testimony to somone who is wholly ready and willing to embrace it, and who desperately wants a witness of The Book of Mormon? Moroni 10:3-5 gives a promise. Is God not bound by that promise?

My concern is how one "knows" that God commanded it -- and if you read the thread you'll find that many posters focused on this particular aspect. For me, epistemology cannot be divorced from this question. In my original answer, I acknowledged that I have done something I thought I would never do. I also have no doubt that this action was something I was supposed to do and needed to do. However, if someone had asked me at the time if I was absolutely sure it was the right thing to do, I would have said I was not absolutely sure but was acting on faith. In retrospect I'm very glad I did, but it was still an action of faith and not of knowledge. There are many people who have killed and "knew" that they were following God's commands. I believe that virtually all of them have been wholly wrong in their interpretation. I feel very solid in my stance that killing someone is a serious enough action and being commanded by God to do so is a rare enough occurrence that I would always question whether such a command was really God's will.

For me, determining the validity of the command is part of the question -- as I think it should be for any moral person.

Acknowledging that my understanding of God is different from most of those on this board, my answer is absolutely not, I would not kill someone because I believed I was commanded by God. I think it is far more likely that I was having hallucinations/delusions than being told by God to kill someone. In regard to Abraham, I was raised to believe that his experience with Isaac shows his deep faith, and I can see why most people interpret the story that way. However, several years ago, I concluded that the correct answer to being told by God to kill your child as a sacrifice is "No." I asked about this on a Christian discussion board and on a Jewish discussion board. Someone on the Jewish board told me that some Jews believe that Abraham actually did fail the test God had given him, that he should have said no. Please understand, I'm not arguing that this is the correct interpretation -- only that the Abraham/Isaac story can be interpreted in different ways. Someone mentioned that the real question is whether you would be obedient. I think this question goes deeper: Are you willing to follow guidance from God even if it disagrees with laws of God that you've been taught? On that, I have to say I would, because I have in the past -- and have seen that my decision was right. It's too personal to describe here, but I did follow through with doing something I never thought I would do, something that I had been vociferously opposed to other people doing. So I guess I can't say for sure what I would do in a given situation. As far as selling my possessions and pursuing an extreme spiritual path -- I hope that I would, but I'm not sure