Planned Parenthood and Christianity ?????

[Wingnut]

The LDS church is against this organization. Just for the record.

I have never heard this, and I'm not questioning it necessarily, but what is your source?

[Guest ceeboo]

I have never heard this, and I'm not questioning it necessarily, but what is your source?

This is what bothers me almost as much as the LDS views I have reading ( why I wrote the OP )

Where and what is the stance of the leadership ???:confused:

What ( if anything ) does the prophet teach and guide you ( LDS ) on this ENORMOUSLY Christian Moral issue!!!

If the prophet does take a stance, why is there so much varying LDS thoughts on it ???

Ceeboo does not get it.

[PeterVenkman]

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.

[PeterVenkman]

Bahahahahhahah .....A pretty good piece of comedic fiction..... and the idea of overpopulation was debunked as junk science years ago.

Forty-two million abortions per year doesn't count as abuse? :eek: Particularly since 93% are done for convenience? Funny, how your opinions outweigh the churches opinions. I wonder if your logic will pass with the Saviour at the great judgnment bar?

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?

[threepercent]

you said the "earth" is overpopulated.

from the definiton you provided it is not. there is enough air, water, food, land, bla, bla, bla for everyone.

[pam]

Ceeboo I'm searching for something from the current leadership of the Church on the subject. What I did find was something that came from an earlier First Presidency that still holds true today.

Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, “Policies and Procedures: Statement on Abortion,” New Era, Apr 1973, 29

In view of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, we feel it necessary to restate the position of the Church on abortion in order that there be no misunderstanding of our attitude.

The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.

Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.

Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, “Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.” [D&C 59:6]

As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:

“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood.

That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”

This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin.

The First Presidency

Harold B. Lee

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The Leaders today still hold this to be true and still follow this.

[pam]

Here is also something from one of the women I have admired most in my life. Mother Teresa. This was written obviously before her death.

During a prayer breakfast in Washington on 3 February 1994, Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard. She is the 84-year-old Yugoslavian nun who has cared for the poorest of the poor in India for years. She is now aged and physically frail, but courageous, with immense spiritual strength. Mother Teresa delivered a message that cut to the very heart and soul of the social ills afflicting America, which traditionally has given generously to the peoples of the earth but now has become selfish. She stated that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. It was reported that Mother Teresa had tied abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets by saying, “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” 10

Then she alluded to the concern that has been shown for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world, for which she expressed gratitude. But she continued: “These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today—abortion, which brings people to such blindness.” 11 Commenting on this powerful message, columnist Cal Thomas asked: “Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion flourishes? Why agonize about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras?” 12

In conclusion Mother Teresa pled for pregnant women who don’t want their children to give them to her. She said, “I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.” 13 What consummate spiritual courage this remarkable aged woman demonstrated. How the devil must have been offended! Her remarkable declaration, however, was not generally picked up by the press or the editorial writers. Perhaps they felt more comfortable being politically or socially correct. After all, they can justify their stance by asserting that everyone does it or that it is legal. Fortunately the scriptures and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised.

[threepercent]

"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."

so, according to your furtherance of intellectual dishonesty, Kendra can kill Maliyah.

Herrintwins.com

and Abby can kill Brittany

YouTube - Conjoined Twins, Abby & Brittany Hensel turn 16

guess what? I dont need a study to tell me that a body is effected by having its brains sucked out.

who is affecting who? whos body gets "consideration" ?

is it easier for you to say "something" inside your body than to say "your child"

Edited November 18, 2008 by threepercent

[Kyra]

When I read those statistics I couldn't control the tears. It breaks my heart. And I'll admit, I take it a little more personally than some because of my infertility issues. But think of all those good, childless couples that could have children to love and care for! As it is, adoption waiting lists are an average of 5 years long and it's VERY expensive. And for members of the church to support something as horrible as abortion breaks my heart.

James E. Faust

We will need greater spirituality to perceive all of the forms of evil and greater strength to resist it.” 10 Abortion Abortion is one evil practice that has become socially accepted in the United States and, indeed, in much of the world. Many of today’s politicians claim not to favor abortion but oppose government intervention in a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

Gospel Library > Magazines > Liahona > November 1995

Haro

Edited November 18, 2008 by Kyra

[pam]

[

If the prophet does take a stance, why is there so much varying LDS thoughts on it ???

Again as in other subjects we have discussed...members can choose to follow the Leaders or not. They can choose to follow scripture or not. Many are swayed by opinions of the world and not following the counsel of the Leaders of the Church. But that is between them and our Heavenly Father.

[bytor2112]

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.

The alternative? You mean like...not having an abortion? Treating sex as sacred and teaching that we must all be accountable for poor decisions? These are alternatives as well...no? Safe, clean partial birth abortion? You doubtless meant clean safe abortion....yes? I think we can all agree that procedure is almost always unnecessary. For the record...I am not arguing for abortion to be illegal. In certain instances an abortion may be appropriate....rape, incest, mother's health. But that accounts for a very small percentage of abortions. Abortion is used primarily as a means of birth control as evidenced by the statistics that I posted. These clinics are not going away and abortion is not going to cease.......BUT, I don't want to contribute my tax dollars......to support the cause. Veiling the evil with...."look at the good the organization does" doesn't work for me. As I posted in a different thread......Please feel free to contribute your personal income if you choose.....but don't force me to support it through federal funding. Obviously, there are as many or more that support abortion as ardently as you do.....let them give there money and it will serve the same purpose. If the argument that has been made that denying funding would also deny other than abortion services...then find a new organization to support that offers other than abortion services.

[PeterVenkman]

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

[bytor2112]

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?

From Environmental Heresies, by Stewart Brand.

For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for the United Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists' greatest fears about indefinite exponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s, the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shocked many demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries, with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia--whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep on dropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time.

That's great news for environmentalists (or it will be when finally noticed), but they need to recognize what caused the turnaround. The world population growth rate actually peaked at 2 percent way back in 1968, the very year my old teacher Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. The world's women didn't suddenly have fewer kids because of his book, though. They had fewer kids because they moved to town.

Cities are population sinks-always have been. Although more children are an asset in the countryside, they're a liability in the city. A global tipping point in urbanization is what stopped the population explosion. As of this year, 50 percent of the world's population lives in cities, with 61 percent expected by 2030. In 1800 it was 3 percent; in 1900 it was 14 percent.

The environmentalist aesthetic is to love villages and despise cities. My mind got changed on the subject a few years ago by an Indian acquaintance who told me that in Indian villages the women obeyed their husbands and family elders, pounded grain, and sang. But, the acquaintance explained, when Indian women immigrated to cities, they got jobs, started businesses, and demanded their children be educated. They became more independent, as they became less fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. Urbanization is the most massive and sudden shift of humanity in its history. Environmentalists will be rewarded if they welcome it and get out in front of it. In every single region in the world, including the U.S., small towns and rural areas are emptying out. The trees and wildlife are returning. Now is the time to put in place permanent protection for those rural environments. Meanwhile, the global population of illegal urban squatters--which Robert Neuwirth's book Shadow Cities already estimates at a billion--is growing fast. Environmentalists could help ensure that the new dominant human habitat is humane and has a reduced footprint of overall environmental impact.

[threepercent]

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.

can you please explain to me how a "safe clean partial birth abortion" is different than "toss her newborn infant into the trash can"?

can you tell me what is a right?

can you tell me where rights come from?

can you tell me how you can feel so bad for the person who is in a back ally by choice bleeding to death but not feel so bad for the person who is in a back alley to be executed via a coat hanger?

[PeterVenkman]

The alternative? You mean like...not having an abortion? Treating sex as sacred and teaching that we must all be accountable for poor decisions? These are alternatives as well...no? Safe, clean partial birth abortion? You doubtless meant clean safe abortion....yes? I think we can all agree that procedure is almost always unnecessary. For the record...I am not arguing for abortion to be illegal. In certain instances an abortion may be appropriate....rape, incest, mother's health. But that accounts for a very small percentage of abortions. Abortion is used primarily as a means of birth control as evidenced by the statistics that I posted. These clinics are not going away and abortion is not going to cease.......BUT, I don't want to contribute my tax dollars......to support the cause. Veiling the evil with...."look at the good the organization does" doesn't work for me. As I posted in a different thread......Please feel free to contribute your personal income if you choose.....but don't force me to support it through federal funding. Obviously, there are as many or more that support abortion as ardently as you do.....let them give there money and it will serve the same purpose. If the argument that has been made that denying funding would also deny other than abortion services...then find a new organization to support that offers other than abortion services.

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.

[PeterVenkman]

can you please explain to me how a "safe clean partial birth abortion" is different than "toss her newborn infant into the trash can"?

can you tell me what is a right?

can you tell me where rights come from?

can you tell me how you can feel so bad for the person who is in a back ally by choice bleeding to death but not feel so bad for the person who is in a back alley to be executed via a coat hanger?

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.

[threepercent]

ya know, I understand you have your opinion, but the fact is, you don't have the courage to just come out and say you prefer murder over the other alternatives. that is what it comes down to.

its not about "whos body it is" or "clean sanctioned murder by licensed professionals vrs a back alley murder" its not about how you personally define life so it fits into your desire to kill.

on the one hand you have a child, that is defiantly alive, although I concur we don't know exactly all the ins and outs of when that happens.

on the other hand you have all the things that really don't matter in life at all, the things that having a baby would "ruin your life" over.

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.

murder vrs inconvenience. you made your choice. have the courage to at least stand by it instead of trying to redefine it into nobility of some twisted sort like "rights" or "saving the world" or "poor teenage girls"

[threepercent]

For the record...I am not arguing for abortion to be illegal. In certain instances an abortion may be appropriate....rape, incest, mother's health.

I would recommend you rethink this.

those who would kill their own offspring to prevent the inconveniences of parenthood would also most likely have no trouble sending a one night stand to jail for rape for the rest of his life for the same reason.

in other words, if you make abortion illegal in this environment, you would have to have some sort of protection other than "he said she said" to keep women from falsely accusing men of rape so they could qualify for an abortion.

i mean compared to infanticide, whats a little false witness?

[bytor2112]

I see your point......this is however the Churches position.

[MarginOfError]

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.

I also tend to lean pro-choice, but I still find your logic for the pro-choice position to be pretty disturbing. What's more, when you explain your views on the subject, I have a hard time understanding how you reconcile your logic with what the Church teaches. It's quite clear, the Church is against abortion except in a few special circumstances. To say that it should be legal because people are going to do it anyway is fallacy. It isn't our responsibility to make sin safe. Our responsibility is to persuade people not to sin.

That's just the start, but I just wanted it to be clear to all of the conservative minded folk that while I may also be pro-choice, I think the reasons stated here are poor reasons for being pro-choice.

[PeterVenkman]

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.

[MarginOfError]

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.

Actually from everything you've said so far, I think your reasons are nothing more than glorified drivel. You put too much effort into trying to sound smarter and better educated than those that disagree with you, and your discourse wreaks of intellectual bullying. It certainly lacks any shred of the 'tolerance' you just tried so hard to sell us.

Nonetheless, please, post something about how your views on these issues are consistent with the Gospel. Take as much time as you need.

[PeterVenkman]

More insults huh...

what a surprise.

[bytor2112]

This whole thing about "inconvenience" just doesn't make very much sense to me.

Me neither...but it happens.

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

[Wingnut]

in other words, if you make abortion illegal in this environment, you would have to have some sort of protection other than "he said she said" to keep women from falsely accusing men of rape so they could qualify for an abortion.

Hypothetical scenario #1:

• Woman is raped.
• Woman is too ashamed and embarrassed to tell the police or go to the hospital.
• Five weeks later, woman still has not had her period.
• Woman takes a pregnancy test. It is positive.
• Woman is single, and knows that she hasnt' had sex with anyone in several months, save the forced intercourse of the rape.
• After much deliberation, woman wants to abort the fetus, rather than relive the heinous memory everyday she sees her belly.
• Under a "no exceptions" law, this woman has to carry the fetus to term, then give it up for adoption. In the meantime, she remains depressed and perhaps even traumatized every day of the pregnancy, perhaps even to the point of not taking care of herself at all (and therefore the fetus).

Hypothetical scenario #2:

• Woman is raped.
• Woman goes immediately to the hospital, where she has a pelvic exam and a rape kit done.
• Woman goes to police with medical evidence and gives a statement.
• Five weeks later, woman still has not had her period.
• Woman takes a pregnancy test. It is positive.
• Woman is single, and knows that she hasnt' had sex with anyone in several months, save the forced intercourse of the rape.
• After much deliberation, woman wants to abort the fetus, rather than relive the heinous memory everyday she sees her belly.
• Under a law that gives exceptions for rape, woman is able to legally and safely abort the fetus, as she has medical proof of rape, as well as police testimony.
• Woman is able to begin moving on with her life and healing much sooner.

those who would kill their own offspring to prevent the inconveniences of parenthood would also most likely have no trouble sending a one night stand to jail for rape for the rest of his life for the same reason.

As a woman, I just have one thing to say to this. How dare you??