PeterVenkman

Are you implying that I am not welcome here? Please explain to me exactly what I have done to patronize others on this website. It is true that I have expressed doubt towards following the prophet in all things. I was under the impression that an appropriate response to this doubt would be to explain why you think it is necessary and important to follow the prophet in all things, not to call me names or attack my spirituality. After all, I was taught that LDS members should critically engage the doctrine and discuss it with each other. Was I wrong about that? I was also under the impression that this website is not limited to LDS members. Why aren't you treating non-LDS people with this same attitude? What did I say that patronized anyone? As far as I can tell, I have asked for an explanation of the logic behind following the first presidency in all things without question. I am 99% positive that our church encourages us to question things and pray about whether they are right. I've prayed, but I came up with a different conclusion than you did. What does that mean? That I must be doing something wrong? Finally, I must copy and paste from the thread on Proposition 8 here, because I'm starting to get fed up with the insults: Simply put, you have no right to tell me where my priorities should be and what positions I should be defending. I am so sick and tired of other members questioning whether the LDS church is my "rightful" place. I've discussed all that I personally need to discuss with church leadership. I'm still here, and I still identify as a mormon. You don't have the right to take that away from me and if I choose not to share my deep experience with you, then that is my right. Seriously, just stop it. Your accusations are hurtful. I have said this multiple times and you don't care, you simply won't let it go. Why is this such a big deal for you? Does it really make you that uncomfortable that there are those within your spiritual organization that disagree with you? You are right that I believe in my own moral compass and I follow it. My moral compass makes sense to me. You are no different, as you follow your own moral compass as well, presumably because it makes sense to you. However, you do not have the right to imply that I am an elitist because I am discussing my position on these issues in a clear way. You really want to believe that I see myself as some sort of "enlightened" person and speak condescendingly with an air of self-righteousness, but that is precisely what you are doing towards me with regard to my spirituality and that is precisely what you are doing towards gay people with regard to their "lifestyle choice." You think you are so enlightened on gospel issues that you can pass judgment on others with that knowledge. It's insulting, and it is not comparable to writing on a forum with clarity about my ideas. Who knew it would be so bad to write in a way that people can understand, regardless of what religion they come from?

Sometimes one must step outside of their ideological framework to see a new perspective.

How many people have gotten infractions for saying rude and offensive things to me? Has no one tried to bait me?

Um, I haven't stated my personal opinion on the death penalty. This whole conversation is about the internal inconsistency that many pro-life supporters overlook. I'm not a supporter of the forced pregnancy movement (what some call "pro-life"), so I don't consider my perspective on the death penalty to be contradictory and you have not explained why it is or asked me how I feel about it. Most of this conversation has been devil's advocate since I posed the question. Again, thank you for insulting me.

Some of you simply can't say anything without adding in a little condescending quip that has nothing to do with the conversation except attack me can you? Hmm, your explanation of the "sacred powers we have over life and death" and the philosophical question of "whether we are exercising this authority righteously and wisely" sounds like there is more grey area than some pro-life supporters want to admit. This whole question about the death penalty was designed to show that it is inconsistent for some to argue that the morality surrounding abortion is so clear and distinct that one must be a horrendous murderer to support the choice, and then also argue that it is politically justified for the state to end life. It really all comes down to the sanctity of life. If life is sacred, then we shouldn't kill anyone, including criminals and the unborn. Once you start to carve out exceptions, so do others. I don't understand how you can support capital punishment and also oppose abortion rights. I also never said my interpretations of law and scripture were superior than yours. I only said that my interpretations made sense to me...they are the most persuasive perspectives I have come across in my studies. I don't find it persuasive to do something because someone else tells me I must. I do, however, find it persuasive if someone gives me reasons that make sense to me in order to encourage me to do something. Dissent is a good thing, not a sin. It is good to disagree, it is good to question, and it is good to express doubt...I'd be willing to bet Joseph Smith would tell you the same.

This precise attitude leads to some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. You actually wish for the world to end? One thing your post illuminated for me is your position that "society" is justified in setting out rules that are enforced through capital punishment. When society starts using death as a tool for punishment, that justifies death and makes it morally ambiguous. When death becomes morally ambiguous, it is easier for us to justify things like abortion, war and revenge. The truly scary part is that you refuse to take any responsibility for your participation in "society" and your encouragement of such a rule. When we start to give responsibility to society and refuse to take responsibility ourselves, then no one is responsible. In my opinion, this is the true slippery slope.

Ah I knew it would only be so long before someone brought up a fear of the end times to justify contradictory beliefs. Yes, Proposition 8 supporters should know that the best thing about a slippery slope argument is that you can begin the slope at any point in a logical chain and slide as far down as necessary to prove their point. My position is that it is precisely the religious notion justifying capital punishment and murder in some instances and not others that makes killing a morally ambiguous issue. Once it is established that killing is morally ambiguous (it is justified in some instances but not in others), then that gives others the ability to "rationalize" the need for things like an abortion, war, revenge, etc. Are you honestly suggesting that we should stop feeding criminals because they "don't deserve it"? Who said you had the power to pass judgment on people in a way that ends their life or subjects them to starvation?

If you lack the ability to know that playing God by deciding when it is justified to murder someone and when it is not justified to murder someone starts down a dangerous slippery slope towards all sorts of moral decay, then there is probably nothing that can be done to reach you.

You're right, you are not cookie cutters and I sincerely apologize if you were offended by the phrase, "you guys." It didn't seem offensive when I wrote it. I was asked who this question was directed at, and I was attempting to include everyone who was opposing abortion on the basis that it is "murdering unborn children" and disrespectful to the sanctity of life.

I'm sorry, but, the way you guys talk about it, qualifiers do not matter. You characterize your pro-life stance as a universal rule to protect existence. After all, life is precious, and if you are truly correct, then we should protect life at all costs...even the lives of murderers. Murder is wrong, but it is not ok to murder anyone, regardless of whether they were a murderer. This is what we call moral consistency. If we honestly believe that life is precious, then there should be no act that allows others to deprive someone of that life. Are you really willing to say that you only care about protecting "innocent" life and that non-innocent life doesn't get the same rights? What about war?

This is not a thread hijack this is a question for clarity. Most people here are all about the rigid either/or nature of abortion because it apparently involves protecting the sanctity of life. In my opinion, if we are really in favor of protecting all life in every single circumstance as a universal rule, then we should make sure our stand in favor of life shows in all contexts. The first question with regard to this is, how do you feel about capital punishment? I believe it is a pretty blatant contradiction if someone opposes abortion but simultaneously supports the death penalty. Likewise, I feel the same way about war, and I do not understand how anyone can oppose abortion on the grounds of the sanctity of life and then support war in any form. Not a thread hijack, just a question designed to elicit thoughts on the value of life.

That sounds like a tautology to me.

So how do you feel about the death penalty?

Kristoffer I thought I was simply too disgusting and evil for you to carry on a conversation with. Why are you still here getting in the last word?

Notice that the official statement from the church also uses the term "fetuses." How dare I use such a term to dehumanize babies. And Carl, I have already answered this. Planned Parenthood's abortions only account for 3% of its activities. It is not bad to provide people with sexual education, resources and support. It's not bad to provide free STD testing for poor people or to refer adoptions. It's not bad to inform people about their options. You are seeing this very black and white...it is an either/or proposition for you, and, in my opinion, that is rarely how the world works.

Um, why should I offer you my perspective on an issue you request when you have met me with nothing but contempt? You've called me names and insulted my form of communication. I don't owe you anything, and I never agreed to write anything out for you.

I was discussing this possibility with someone else earlier this morning. I got no problems with this.

More insults huh... what a surprise.

Are they bad reasons because they are inconsistent with what you consider to be church doctrine or are they bad reasons because they don't make logical sense? My perspective on what the church teaches and how that should be interpreted is its own entire thread. Ultimately, I agree with you. I am myself concerned that others are trying to pigeonhole me into a position that I do not agree with. An analogy to the gay marriage issue will be helpful. Orson Scott Card wrote an article in DeseretNews called "Disagree but don't be Unkind." In that article he discussed the meaning of "tolerance." Tolerance, to Card, meant that one accepts that another has an opinion with which they disagree. If everyone agreed, then it would be consensus, but tolerance is only needed when there is disagreement. From this, many LDS people say that they tolerate homosexuals, but they do not agree with their "lifestyle choice." Now, I feel that Threepercent is trying to characterize my position as actually hoping babies get killed...of actually making the choice to murder. This is simply not my position. I do not want to kill fetuses, nor do I "want" others to do it. In my mind, abortion should not be the first choice of contraception or birth control. Sure, I disagree with the way some people use abortion, but I tolerate its existence and I appreciate the importance of making abortions available. Threepercent says, "and with those two considerations placed before you, you would choose to kill a person rather that suffer the least degree of inconvenience. that is the baseline." This is simply not true. I will never be pregnant, so I will never have to make the choice. The two considerations will never be placed before me, as I am not female and I don't have the ability to become pregnant. I would not choose to kill a person rather than suffer the least degree of inconvenience, and it is here that you must understand my position of "tolerance", even though I disagree. This whole thing about "inconvenience" just doesn't make very much sense to me. I don't know anyone that aborts a child so they can sit at home watching Buffy and eating Cheetos. I do, however, know of young teenage girls from poor families that recognize that if they have a child they will not be able to support themselves or their family financially, and will not be able to provide their child with the opportunities it deserves to be happy and successful in life. I don't consider it simply "inconvenience" for a pregnant teen to favor an abortion over raising a child in a physically and sexually abusive household either. Again, if I were a pregnant woman in these scenarios, my choice would probably be different, but I'm not, and I tolerate the freedom to make the decision. Lucky me that I don't ever have to make such a difficult decision.

Yes I can. 1. a partial birth abortion is different than throwing a newborn into the trash can because the death is instantaneous rather than suffering at the bottom of a trash can for hours before death. I have already stated my opinion on when life begins, and that is when a child is no longer breathing liquid. I don't believe life begins at conception, and so I don't consider the baby to be developed at the time of abortion. This is itself a subjective determination, and it is also a semantic point upon which both of us will base our argument. You will say its murder to abort babies because they are alive at conception, while I will say it is not murder to kill something that is not a human yet or developed enough to understand what happens to it. 2. The definition of rights are more complicated. Rights are those freedoms that we have as individuals and as a collective body. There are positive rights (the right to take an action) and there are negative rights (the right to be free from some action). Both kinds are defined and protected by the government that we live in. The rights of individuals are different in China than they are in the United States, as are the rights of individuals in Russia or european countries. 3. Rights come from our understanding of what is just, fair and morally acceptable. 4. I don't feel bad for the person that is "about to be executed by coat hanger" because they are not fully developed, they haven't even been born yet. Babies don't have fully formed bodies even when they do pop out of the womb, and I am not convinced that a baby in the womb would suffer as much as a person who is actually breathing oxygen.

Yes, refraining from an abortion is also a choice, and I certainly support adoption. I was being asked a whole bunch of questions about partial birth abortion (the one where you birth the child backwards, stab the head and suck out the brains), which is why I stated that I would rather have a woman get a safe clean partial birth abortion than get a coat hanger abortion or throw the newborn into the trash can. Although I understand Pam's point that she has had a friend that used abortion as a form of birth control, I doubt she waited 8.5 months before terminating her pregnancies. In fact, I would be willing to say that there really aren't any people that just decide a week before delivery that its time to get an abortion. Usually, partial birth abortions are only necessary for extreme emergencies. I would be willing to bet that a significant percentage of all partial birth abortions fit into the 7% of "justified" abortions that other members have brought up in this thread. You are right that abortion is not going to stop, which is why we should regulate it and ensure that it is done safely. As I've said twice now, the alternative is worse. One friend of mine suggested that funding also be available for women who choose not to have an abortion to receive education, social services, prenatal care, etc. I support that as well. I have given money to planned parenthood, but I also think they should receive government funding. It would be great if we could all pick and choose which social programs our tax dollars go to, but we can't. The fact is that 97% of Planned Parenthood's activities are about sexual education, support and treatment. Only 3% of their activities are abortions. They should get money like other medical organizations that do philanthropic work around the world.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that the woman's body must be taken into account when it comes to abortion because it is there body too. Likewise, I believe that both Kendra and Maliyah should be considered when making any decision. Another point to make is that I believe life begins when a person breathes oxygen and is no longer sustaining itself with liquid inside of the womb. Honestly, I have no problem with calling fetuses "babies" or "children" and still supporting abortion rights. I will refer to "the unborn" however you would like me to refer to them, but it will not change my position. The relationship between Kendra and Maliyah is pretty interesting though. My first thought is how conjoined twins fit into the Proclamation on the family...I mean, entrance to the celestial kingdom partly depends on celestial marriage, which is between one man and one woman. What about Kendra and Maliyah? And, on a separate issue, overpopulation and climate change has not been debunked, nor is there enough on earth for everyone: Clean water shortage: Experts: Half world faces water shortage by 2080 - International Herald Tribune Nor any drop to drink Global Water Shortage Looms In New Century Clean water shortages cause global concern | mndaily.com - Serving the University of Minnesota Since 1900 Desertification: peopleandplanet.net > food and agriculture > newsfile > un warns of desertification crisis Combating desertification is key to tackling global food crisis Climate change: Combating desertification is key to tackling global food crisis Effects of Climate Change Today Food Shortage: Experts: Global Food Shortages Could ?Continue for Decades' :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website Food shortages: how will we feed the world? - Telegraph

From Wikipedia entry on "Overpopulation" Overpopulation is not a function of the size or density of the population. Overpopulation is determined using the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. If a given environment has a population of ten, but there is food or drinking water enough for only nine, then that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 individuals but there is enough food, shelter, and water for 200 for the indefinite future, then it is not. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, a decrease in emigration, or from an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely-populated areas to be overpopulated, as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara Desert or Antarctica). The resources to be considered when evaluating whether an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, clean air, food, shelter, warmth, and other resources necessary to sustain life. If the quality of human life is addressed, there may be additional resources considered, such as medical care, employment, education, electricity, proper sewage treatment and waste disposal. Overpopulation places competitive stress on these basic life sustaining resources, leading to a diminished quality of life. End quote. Now...what exactly has been debunked about this theory? Can you please explain to me how this doesn't make sense?

Bytor, my opinions are my opinions after all. I am part of the church so it is silly to say that I value my opinions on this issue more than the church's opinions on this issue. We are part of the same organization. And yes, I just want to defend what some people consider so disgusting. The alternative absolutely would be worse. Abortion is inevitably going to happen. People are going to do it no matter what. You are so quick to say "disgusting" and "evil" when it comes to abortion, but what about some of the alternatives for people who are going to get one anyway? I'm really sorry if this offends you, but I would rather a woman have a safe, clean partial birth abortion than to have a back alley abortion with a coat hanger, or for a teen mother to toss her newborn infant into the trash can. These things happen, and they can be avoided with the right to an abortion. I consider those things disgusting and evil. Sure, I agree that adoption is a better choice and I would not choose to abort a child, but the decision must be available.

What is the difference between being evil and supporting evil? Does it make a qualitative difference in God's eyes? You say that abortion is not constitutionally protected, but it actually is. If you look at the decision of Roe v. Wade, then you will see that the right to terminate pregnancy arises from the constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity, both stemming from the Bill of Rights. This has been constitutional law since the decision was handed down in the 1970s. I suspect that you will say it is not constitutional because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution, but that response fails to understand the idea of precedent and the role of the judiciary in our government. The Supreme Court is the entity that is responsible for interpreting the meaning of the constitution, and in 1973 the United States Supreme Court said that the right to an abortion was a constitutionally protected right. One other thing on this. In our church we have a First Presidency that gets to "interpret" scriptures and other fundamental texts, and then give us "guidance" on what they mean. We have a group that is responsible for interpreting doctrine and clarifying it for members. That is precisely what the court did here. I don't see how you can say it is not constitutional. On the issue of "unrestricted abortion rights", I do mean that an abortion should be available to the woman in an unrestricted way. This is not intellectually dishonest. This really comes down to how you view human society. Personally, because I believe that people want to do what's best. To quote a post I made on page 3: You are right, "unrestricted" does mean whenever she feels like it. That is certainly what it infers. I just said a few posts ago that no one wants to kill fetuses. We all like life. The reason I am for abortion rights is because I have an optimistic view of human society. I do not believe that the world is one of sin and degradation and that we must live above it, I think the world has a lot of good to offer and I believe people generally want to do what is best. From this perspective, it is hard for me to believe that enough people will "abuse" the right to an abortion to justify restricting its availability. The woman carrying the child has a life too, and her concerns must be taken into account. To you, it is simply "interrupting life," but this statement itself dehumanizes the being and experience of the woman, including her moral considerations and very difficult decision. Just because you wouldn't make the decision doesn't mean other people don't have the right to make it. And I'm sorry, but when you have something inside your body feeding off of you, then your body should also be considered in any decision. I don't need a double blind study to tell me that a woman's body is effected by pregnancy. Finally, on the issue of overpopulation and global warming, the world simply disagrees with you. There are 7 billion people on the planet right now, and they are stretching our resources to the limit. I read an article today that stated there would be a massive clean water shortage by the year 2080 and zero oil in 100 years. Animals are going extinct and plant life is suffering from desertification. Sea wildlife are also suffering because of global warming. I'm sure it would be nice to have your own little quarter acre of land in Australia, but physical space is not really what I am talking about when I refer to overpopulation. I think you are on the wrong side of science when you take the position that global warming is a lie. Check out Al Gore's movie. It's pretty good. With regards to language choices and "killing fetuses", yes, I used the word "kill" as opposed to "terminate". The same way my motorcycle has a "kill" switch and someone can "kill" an interview by walking away. Semantics are not terribly persuasive, although it is a tactic. Finally, with regard to the Sanger quotes, this is totally irrelevant to me. Planned Parenthood is not Margaret Sanger. Planned Parenthood does not advocate eugenics. Planned Parenthood does not advocate vasectomies for criminals. Planned Parenthood has not stated any opposition to the mormon community or children. This discussion is about Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, not Margaret Sanger. I don't agree with margaret Sanger on most of those quotes, but I don't think that prevents me from supporting a very helpful international medical organization.