The Folk Prophet

^ This.

There are no insurmountable barriers to a single woman procreating, or to male-male or single male adoptions. That is beyond the point I was making. And, also beyond the point, there is, inherently, more to the male-female raising of children than just making babies (as anatess alluded to). So I would content that an argument that my point is weakened by your point is missing a few important ideas, that I did not address, but are nonetheless valid.

That is what I said. But don't twist it to include scenarios where there are other options. If the ONLY option is the SURE death of both or death of 1, then death of 1 is better. I don't know that it's entirely a decision of morality however. It's a logical choice. Since you have put it into terms of "me" and another person, then I expect that if that person were a loved one, I'd probably choose to die along side them rather than kill them to save myself. But that's not, necessarily, reflective of morality or logic one way or another. And there is a potential morality idea in the killing of another to save yourself rather than dying along side them. My response to the pregnancy situation is more akin to a husband being forced to shoot his child to save his wife or the guy with the gun to her head will kill them both. That's a much tougher choice. Of course, I'd still shoot the guy with the gun...but... presuming that was not a potential option for whatever reason... if you choose not to kill the child, then you are losing your wife too. So it's logical. Moral though? *shrug* Hard to say. As I've said, and will now reiterate, I would try and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Beyond that. I don't know. But in the ectopic pregnancy situation -- if I were to influence my wife to die rather than have it dealt with, would I then be culpable for her death. I mean the child's death is already forgone. It's not a matter of killing them. They have already been kill. So perhaps a more reasonable example would be, my child's been mortally shot beyond saving already, and is also hanging from a rope off a cliff. My wife's in a precarious situation where she will die as well if I don't cut the rope the child hangs from. Do I cut the rope? The child's already dead either way, but if I don't cut the rope, the child's taking the wife along too. Seems to me that cutting the rope is the moral choice. Anyhow, no analogy would be perfect. But the tubal pregnancy situation stands on its own without analogies. The dying child is going to die no matter what. The mother doesn't have to. 1 death or 2. It's fairly plain. Also, please don't take my point of view (which is easy to throw out in a theoretical sense when not actually facing the choice) as in any way representative of anything by my point of view.

Hahaha

And, I might add, implementing such a program for YW would (obviously, I mean, come on) not require giving the priesthood to them.

In war, as with medical situations, I would follow what I felt the Spirit guided me to do. Beyond that, I cannot say. Logically, if two soldiers were brought out, surrounded by armed guards, and one was given a gun and told to shoot the other or they'd both die... Yeah...I'd probably still pick out the nastiest guard and put one between his eyes. But, once again...not the same situation. You're probably going to die anyhow. Personally, I'd rather die than live with myself having shot someone in cold blood. But that is not something I would dare judge another on as having done wrong if they chose to shoot their fellow prisoner instead.

A bit off topic...but.... Speaking of converting Mormons to other religions: I saw a billboard yesterday here in Utah that said something along the lines of. THE BIBLE. INSPIRED. AUTHORITATIVE. FINAL. And I couldn't help but think to myself, these people have absolutely no idea how to reach out to Mormons.

It's a silly premise because A. When on earth is this ever going to actually happen and, B. It's presuming only two options, 1 dies or 2 die. But there are other options. Personally, I'd just shoot the guy holding the gun to my head instead.

This has nothing to do with why they want the priesthood. How can it be? Getting your eagle scout has nothing whatsoever to do with the priesthood.

Of course there's also the very real idea that after so many years of having a plural marriage, one is as likely as not (if treating the situation with honor, respect, and diligence) to learn to prefer the situation. I'm thinking that there would probably never be a situation where one prefer the fact that they had to kill their own child (except, of course, as a path to gaining eternal life). The idea that everyone (females included) hated every minute of plural marriage and never had anything but suffering and sacrifice therein is simply not true. I do expect it was challenging for everyone involved therein. But so is monogamous marriage, so that's hardly compelling. We, being small minded as all humans are, cannot see past our own cultural biases. But most of the aversion to plural marriage is just that.

I don't remember a big shebang when I got my eagle. I don't even think there were refreshments. Of course this was over 25 years ago...so I may not remember correctly. But I know (whether there were refreshments or not) that it wasn't a BIG shebang.

I go with utilitarianism. Of course, the problem with that is finding common ground upon wherein lies the greatest good. Even as an intellectual exercise. I mean, realistically, how many of us can actually understand polygamy? Common ground can only go so far, of course, with those who simply do not believe in God and/or universal truth.

I'm sorry...but comparing a friends feelings being hurt because someone actually did right by her (what kind of a jerk friend would not let someone know they were getting cheated on?) to a baby dying... ...not working for me.

Did someone mention walls? If a discussion of word play, meanings, etc., is offensive, then it is a wall to communication. You put me into a position of being absolutely incapable of furthering the discussion for fear of offending. Therefore I'm left with one of three options. Acquiesce dishonestly, offend you, or walk away. So I'll walk away.

Well, this is just not true.

I'm not going to answer such a silly premise other than to say that I would follow the will of God per the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I hate to tell you this anatess, but my position is, very plainly, that a lot of theology is incomprehensible word play. That's not to say I do not respect what Catholics believe. I have a great deal of respect for devout Catholicism. But I'm not going to say something makes sense when it doesn't. And I'm not going to kowtow to an ideology just because you claim it makes sense. If it actually makes sense, then show me. If, legitimately, we simply don't understand, then perhaps it is your failing in explaining it. Logic is logic. Use it and explain. Don't just claim it makes sense because it's commonly accepted and drilled into you by "learning" -- and that we just don't understand. We're moderately intelligent people here. Certainly you must know by now that most discussions on forums such as these end up being semantic word play. And you certainly can be the wall, being the one who has had the ideas taught to you for even longer than you have LDS ideas. I'm not saying you are the only wall. But if we, generally, could admit that we do have walls -- on both sides -- communication would increase at the least.

Like I said, easy to say.

Hopefully my previous post answered this, but I would say it is the balance of good being done. 2 die or only 1 dies. Only one dying is the better choice, therefore it is the moral choice. Letting the mother die as well is killing her too. So if the only option is to save one, you save one, even if it means killing the other sooner than they might have died otherwise.

The problem with this is it makes it look like saving a woman and the baby dying as a KNOWN result is the same thing as operating on someone and it going wrong and them dying from it. Sure there's a difference between your two scenarios. And I think we'd mostly agree that saving the mother is the right choice in this case. Where we differ is WHY it's the right choice. In the case of the Fallopian tube removal, what we're trying to say is that removing it is INTENTIONAL. And that cannot be gotten around. You can say, hey, I cut off your air to put out this fire. I knew it was going to kill you, and I didn't mean to, but I did it to put out the fire to save someone else. So...sorry. But you still just killed me! And you made a choice to do so. Sure, the fire would have killed us both anyhow. So you put it out to save one of us. But you still killed me. Yes, morally the right choice. The obvious choice! Of course. And I would have told you to do the same even had I been given the option. But you still killed me in doing so. Own it! :)

Actually, I do agree that they are different morally. What I disagree on is that "intent" makes the difference in morality, or that the intent is not part of the equation when death is the sure outcome. But what I'm calling word play is "the baby has to be killed versus the baby has to die". Unquestionably there is a moral difference in the choices...but either way the baby is being killed -- as are all who die. Something killed them. In this case, it is the medical procedure. If not for the medical procedure, then the medical issue/complication kills. If not for the medical problem, something else...at the last, old age. But something is killing when someone dies. And trying to define death without "killing" is word play.

I feel fine about it. Not sure what you're asking here. Fair enough. "Abortion" is defined by Catholocism very specifically. So -- semantics. I should have said that both justify the death of an unborn child via medical process at some level...or something akin instead.

Once more: who's the wall here? Pretty arrogant to assume only your side of the understanding is valid. From my perspective this -- you say the baby has to be killed whereas we say the baby has to die -- is the word play we're objecting too. If you cannot see that it's wordplay, then we're talking to the wall...

That's an easy write-off when someone disagrees with you and/or the ideology of an organization.

Because with pre-knowledge they are inseparable. If you know an action has a result then your intent in said action MUST include said result. Denying that it does is logically invalid. It's like a world leader claiming, "We didn't intend all the innocents in the hospital to die when we bombed it. We only intended to kill the terrorist hiding out there. Therefore, we wash our hands of the innocent who died therein as a result of our actions." The claim we make is simply that if you know an action leads to a result then you are culpable for said action. Period. Therefore, the question is not entirely about intent. It is about justification. Either way, clearly, both LDS and Catholic views justify abortion at some level. Catholicism, apparently, wraps it up in intent. LDS-ism includes intent, but ultimately understands that intent is complex and messy, and therefore reliance upon the guidance of revelation becomes the guiding factor. You can intend "good" all you want in the LDS view and still willfully disobey God, upon which you will be accountable, regardless of your so-called good will.