Just_A_Guy

For the most part, I don't think that's genuine persuasion. I think it's mostly attributable to his position giving him access to information that he didn't have before, forcing him into the realization that in the above-stated issues he had no other logical course of action. What would you tell President Obama about the results of a botched abortion that he doesn't already know? He knew the results intimately in 2002 when he fought against a born-alive bill. After that legislative session, he went home to his wife and children--including a baby girl named Sasha. Your assertion appears to be that state governments have no prerogative to try to encourage their citizens to engage in--or avoid--certain behaviors that society deems undesirable. I disagree. I never once attempted to block legislation that would have ended the practice of "doctors" neglecting babies to death. Obama did. Not once. Not twice. Three times. And, quite bluntly, when he had a chance and the funding (this year) to reduce abortion through the methods pro-choicers always claim to support--he didn't. That's what born-alive legislation attempted to do, as did the partial birth abortion ban. Obama opposed both, dismissing them as "backdoor" attempts to limit elective abortions in the future. What now? I've never supported a blanket ban on abortion, MoE. And my criticism of Obama does not, in this case, come from his support of abortion; it comes from his opposition to born-alive legislation. If it were Hillary Clinton or John Edwards speaking at Notre Dame, and no evidence of either of them having opposed born-alive legislation had surfaced; then I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

MOE, the issue isn't whether he enjoys it. I doubt (to invoke Godwin) that Hitler got his jollies trudging through Auschwitz, either. The issue, when all is said and done, is whether Obama knowingly and intentionally enables the practice. He obviously did. I'd be worried about my comments harming the pro-life cause, if I thought Obama was willing to compromise. But I don't think he is. The guy will talk 'til the cows come home, but he's going to do what he wants to do--which, incidentally, is why I'm not too concerned about the prospect of him sitting down and talking with Iran, Syria, or anyone else (he's not going to use American resources to push the Jews into the sea just because Ahmadinejad tells him he should). If the president wanted to reduce the number of abortions, he'd have included substantial measures to that end in his 2010 budget. Aside from "modest" increases in contraceptive funding and a new post-delivery visitation program, he didn't--no adoption subsidies that I'm aware of; no beefed-up counseling on abortion alternatives. "Progress", for pro-lifers, would involve making nice and appealing to President Obama's better nature. But the evidence is that, on this issue, Obama has no better nature. That's simply a fact that must be taken into consideration when formulating a political strategy. And, yes; it's also demonization. The guy is willing to trade the lives of living, breathing children in order to assure his constituents' right to consequence-free sex, for cripe's sake. Outrage and social opprobrium are perfectly in order.

The problem with that being . . . At least the right not to be dumped naked on a countertop in an empty room and left for dead, evidently, was not recognized universally for all born-alive fetuses. Again . . . so, what? If it really were a backdoor assault on Roe, the first attempt to apply it beyond its stated parameters would have gone to court quickly; and the attempt would have been shut down. (Courts can limit the application of an unconstitutional law without completely nullifying the law. In fact, it's a canon of statutory interpretation that if at all possible, courts should attempt to read and apply statutes in such a way as to make them pass constitutional muster.)

What was wrong with it? The only problem I can see is that it required physicians to try to save all fetuses that came out moving and breathing; rather than only saving the ones that they (who aren't in the business of saving life anyway) deem "viable". Obama's stated intention, as of 2001, was to preserve abortion rights of women. The only other rationale I can see is to preserve the financial viability of abortion clinics by not forcing them to maintain the equipment and personnel typically employed to care for preemies. Neither, in my opinion, is a legitimate excuse for permitting "doctors" to dump living, breathing, moving children on a shelf and waiting for them to die.

It's Bush's fault that Obama ultimately got the reins of a program he'd been pushing all along, and then steered it away from its (formerly) universally-acknowledged intended target?

I see no need to defend myself, Italics. I'm not the one denigrating the Church's authority to administer the gospel of repentance.

Assuming, arguendo, that your statistic on the number of unrepentant former-maker-outers is correct: Yes. We do not redefine "sin" simply because everybody's doing it. And if I understand your doctrine correctly, they needn't ever have bothered going to their bishop. Ever.

If that were all Obama's stance were, I might be able to find room for compromise. But that isn't all Obama's stance is. Read the link. He voted against born-alive legislation--twice. The first explanation he offered was a lie. The second was legally spurious, and, as former president of the Harvard Law Review, he would have known it. And I believe we've had this discussion before. The guy's a radical, even by pro choice standards; and I'm not going to sweep that under the rug just because most of this country's moderates don't want to admit they were snookered.

Very well. Obama is not in favor of the murder of children. He is only in favor of the negligent homicide of children. (/sarcasm) There is room for toning down rhetoric elsewhere, but Obama's stance on abortion is morally repugnant. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

Being a male, and (by your own statements) a student at BYU-Idaho--how is that even possible?

Yes. It depends on what your definition of "is" is. When I was caught up in immorality, I recited that tale to myself frequently. It was very comforting. But even if it were true (and I've never heard an actual source for that), it is in direct contravention of the current teachings of the Church. To say otherwise is to propound false doctrine.

The easiest to profess. The hardest to actually live.

I'm not sure about mechanics, but a good lawyer will inform the client of all the options and then--this is the important part--let the client make the decision. As a lawyer, if my client wants to do something completely boneheaded--that's his prerogative (as long as he doesn't try to make me do something unethical in the process).

I'm not sure about mechanics, but a good lawyer will inform the client of all the options and then--this is the important part--let the client make the decision.

Was that intended as a snide remark about my parentage, sir? On guard!

A lemur? Are you telling me that this guy is my great-great-granddaddy?

Given the infinitesimal number of Christian churches whose members practice collectivism as practiced under Peter, it strikes me that there must be very few "hearts in the grip of grace" in all of Christendom.

This prohibition is a policy and a doctrinal preference, but it is not absolute. There have been exceptions even after the revelation on marriage was received. Here's one from my own family history, as published in the LDS Biographical Encyclopedia:

. . . And? (Kinda makes you question all the brouhaha we build up around weddings, doesn't it?) How much conflict has been introduced into the personal lives of Church members by, say, the Church's strict injunction against wine/coffee/tea--which, from a medical point of view, aren't really all that harmful? The Lord puts wedges between His people and their surrounding culture at practically every turn, and has done so for millennia.

A process also known as "divine investiture of authority".

Now that a Republican is not in the White House, we've suddenly remembered that we are not and cannot be the world's policemen. (No offense, Maxel. I realize that a lot of conservatives were opposing war even during the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

HEthePrimate, I'm not particularly concerned what outsiders think of us. Let's look at it this way: If my parents are so shallow that they'd completely throw our relationship away because they're in a snit that they couldn't be with me for a couple of hours on one day of my life (disregarding the other several-thousand-odd days of my life where their presence is more than welcome)--really, who's being more "cultish", manipulative, controlling, irrational, and generally divisive? Why are observant Mormons the ones who should have to make all the compromises? Soul_Searcher: Quite bluntly, I think that's the sacrifice the Lord wants us to be making at this point in time, for a variety of social and spiritual reasons. I'm not inclined to go into detail at this point (I need to get back to drafting a stipulation), and--at the risk of sounding like a patronizing, condescending, SOB--I think they'd make more of an impression on you if you played devil's advocate for a few minutes and considered the potential reasons on your own.

Was it also "messed up" for the Church to teach that converts should completely forsake their non-member families for the rest of their lives and move to "Zion" (wherever that was deemed to be)? I don't think the Church's current policy is, or needs to be, absolute and unchangeable through all eternity. But I have faith that it is currently in place for some very good reasons. And when you look at what was asked of Church members in the past--we're getting off very lightly indeed.

On a mostly-topical rant: Republicans need to drop their archaic opposition to abortion! It's killing the party!

You mean it wasn't President Obama?