Probably a "different" kind of Christian...

[zil]

LeSellers-Ethincally, I am 100% English. Understatement, along with sarcasm, is in the blood. 

 

And all this time I thought you were a Gator. Well, more rethinking is in order on that application.  What other surprises do you have for me?!

[Guest MormonGator]

And all this time I thought you were a Gator. Well, more rethinking is in order on that application.  What other surprises do you have for me?!

LOL!!! Love it!!!! 

(true though, not a lot of English Gators out there) 

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[bytor2112]

Ethincally, I am 100% English

 

 

 

As in from the UK?

[Guest MormonGator]

As in from the UK?

I'm adopted, raised in the states by Americans. Both my biological parents were ethically English. 

Not telling dark secrets, Almost everyone who knows me knows it. I've met adopted people who do keep it quiet, and that's fine as well.

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

• In a legal sense, abortion does not equal murder because abortion is legal, and murder (by definition) is not.

 

I agree.  I thought I said that.

 

 

• in a strictly ecclesiastical sense, the Church has differentiated abortion from murder, though it has said the two are "like unto" each other, which should give any thoughtful Saint cause to avoid any statement designed to lessen the severity of the sin of abortion.

Again, I thought I said that.

 

 

• In a moral sense, you cannot say that abortion is not murder. Only God can make such a proclamation, and to my knowledge, he has said no such thing.

Did you read the link?  Search for the word "unpardonable".  Read that paragraph.

 

My primary point was that being a libertarian has little to do with being against abortion unless you first believe from a religious POV that the spirit is in the body.  We do not have such a position, therefore, one cannot make the libertarian agrument in the face of LDS theology.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

Did you read the link?  Search for the word "unpardonable".  Read that paragraph.

 

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.

 

Perhaps you did not read the link, or perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Or perhaps your reading comprehension leads you to a different conclusion than mine leads me to.

 

When I read the above, I see no indication that the Lord has made a proclamation. I see someone making inferences, which he openly acknowledges as such, in his personal interpretation.

 

Let me reiterate. In a moral sense, you cannot say that abortion is not murder. Only God can make such a proclamation, and to my knowledge, he has said no such thing.

 

If you have evidence (not mere interpolation or inference) that the Lord has proclaimed abortion-for-convenience as not-murder, please provide it. Otherwise, I stand by my assessment.

[LeSellers]

Ours is almost the only Christian faith that does NOT have an official position that the embryo has a spirit from conception.  Therefore, religiously, we do not know if it is alive.

My comment had nothing to do with doctrine or policy on abortion.

Last I heard, the Brethren released a statement on abortion that said that as far as they understood, an abortion was not a sin from which there is no repentance — hardly a ringing endorsement, but not a total condemnation, either. A woman who's had or a man who's arranged for or paid for an abortion, repented of or not, cannot serve a mission.

 

A purist libertarian position is that parents have absolute authority over their children until they reach the age of majority.  That would include ending their life if you were truly "as libertarian as possible".

I don't know what libertarians you've been reading, but most of those I've read or talked with don't take any such position. They (and I) believe that children should have all the freedom they can manage safely, and that, at some individually elected point, they are totally emancipated, legally arbitrary dates not withstanding.

Some call it "gentle parenting", but I prefer "treating your children as children of God, as real people".

 

The Church's position on abortion is that it is "like unto" shedding of innocent blood.  But does not appear to be the same: Source.  Therefore, it would not be something that a libertarian would necessarily object to.

Shedding blood (i.e., murder) is far from the only way one can initiate force, or, in my earlier words, violate the non-aggression principle.

 

Do not mistake my position here.  I'm firmly pro-life.  But I do need to point out that the reasoning for it is not because abortion = murder.  It does not.  The reason to object to it is an entirely different matter.  And you cannot through LDS theology and Libertarian ideology make the argument against abortion on the basis that it is murder or is an aggression against another person.

If it's not aggression against another person, it's so close to it that there is no observable distinction.

Abortion ends a life, stops a beating heart, terminates a potential contributor to the wealth of the human race.

There is no justification for it except when that pregnancy directly affects the life of the mother, and this is only because of her right to self defense. If she could live using advanced medical support, I'd question whether even that threat is sufficient rationale to kill her child.

With that said, among the hundred pregnancies I've had any connection with (children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc., to my knowledge, none was even close to that threshold, so how I would react is purely theoretical. I'd hope and pray for consistency and inspiration.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

My primary point was that being a libertarian has little to do with being against abortion unless you first believe from a religious POV that the spirit is in the body.  We do not have such a position, therefore, one cannot make the libertarian argument in the face of LDS theology.

Since there are two (although one, mine, is distinctly in the minority) approaches to abortion in libertarian thought, and there are many non-religious libertarians who reject abortion as acceptable, your statement is overly broad: one most certainly can reject a religious PoV "that the spirit is in the body", and still see abortion as initiation of force against the child.

It depends, I suppose (not having been appointed a spokesman for atheist and other libertarians of this bent) it depends on their viewpoint of when "human life" or individuality applies to the fœtus. They, like many in the religious world, differ.

Lehi

[Guest]

Before you can apply libertarian thought on the issue of abortion, you have first to agree on when Life begins.

[Guest]

Perhaps you did not read the link, or perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Or perhaps your reading comprehension leads you to a different conclusion than mine leads me to.

I read it.

I read it.

I did get a different conclusion than yours.  I'm just barely understanding your reasoning (maybe you can help me).  Here is my line of reasoning for my conclusion.

 

1) The "like unto" language says it does not equal.  While I certainly am on your side about considering it a very grave and serious sin, it certainly is not equal to shedding of innocent blood.

2) Murder is usually unpardonable.

3) The "would suggest" says that with lack of better evidence or further revelation, a Prophet of God is currently interpreting this to be so. i.e. -- forgivable.  The very fact that it is forgivable would indicate it is different than (i.e. not equal to) and even less than shedding of innocent blood.

4) I'd submit that with lack of further evidence a prophetic interpretation is better than our individual vague feelings of morality.

5) Given a Prophetic interpretation, I'd say the onus is on you to prove that it is otherwise.

6) I'm separating our religious knowledge of the situation vs earthly means.  For lack of revelation on the matter, I'm stuck with determining our earthly knowledge on the matter for purposes of determining my own interpretation of murder.  And it is there that I believe we can win some points for the pro-life crowd.

 

SEMANTICS:

 

My definition of murder from a religious viewpoint is that the victim in question must have a united spirit and body.  To disunite it without cause is considered shedding of innocent blood.  If a body and spirit are not united, then there was no union to disunite.  Therefore, no murder.

 

The Church's official position is WE DO NOT KNOW when the spirit enters the body.  With lack of revelation, we cannot know.  Therefore, from a religious viewpoint, we cannot know that we are committing murder.  Then we go back to the prophetic interpretation as a guidance.

 

If you have a different definition of murder then we'll have a different discussion.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

...one most certainly can reject a religious PoV "that the spirit is in the body", and still see abortion as initiation of force against the child.

It depends, I suppose (not having been appointed a spokesman for atheist and other libertarians of this bent) it depends on their viewpoint of when "human life" or individuality applies to the fœtus. They, like many in the religious world, differ.

Lehi

 

Ok.  At least you understood my point.  Thank you.  And this is the crux of the argument.  As Anatess said,"When does life begin?"

 

My position was that since the LDS official doctrine offers little to no guidance on this, we cannot use it to inform us on such a position.  We must have some other means to inform us on the answer to that all - important question.

 

This assumes that others have the same definition of life as I do regarding the context of the unborn vis-a-vis abortion and LDS doctrine: The union of the spirit and body.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

(1 of 2)

 

I'm just barely understanding your reasoning (maybe you can help me).  Here is my line of reasoning for my conclusion.

 

I will try. It boils down to this: You assume a very great deal too much, and at every step you read into what we have been told. I find this a careless approach that inevitably leads to overstatement. To wit:

 

1) The "like unto" language says it does not equal.

 

No, it does not. That is simply wrong. "Like unto" does not mean "different from", and most certainly does not mean "less grievous than".

 

While I certainly am on your side about considering it a very grave and serious sin, it certainly is not equal to shedding of innocent blood.

 

If you agree that abortion is "like unto" murder, how then do you conclude that "it certainly is not equal to" murder? That defies the plain meaning of words.

 

2) Murder is usually unpardonable.

 

The people of Ammon stand as witnesses against this statement. Murdering against the light is perhaps unpardonable, but murder in general is not unpardonable. If so, much of the human race would be lost.

 

3) The "would suggest" says that with lack of better evidence or further revelation, a Prophet of God is currently interpreting this to be so.

 

Incorrect on several counts. First, the article in question was not written by a prophet or apostle. Second, the fact that the leadership of the Church says that, for now, we will not treat Sin A the same as we treat Sin B does not imply that Sin A is not in fact as grievous as Sin B. It implies nothing at all, beyond the simple fact that the two sins are, for the moment, being treated differently.

 

i.e. -- forgivable.  The very fact that it is forgivable would indicate it is different than (i.e. not equal to) and even less than shedding of innocent blood.

 

Again, you defy the very meaning of the words "like unto" in order to find justification for your inference.

 

4) I'd submit that with lack of further evidence a prophetic interpretation is better than our individual vague feelings of morality.

 

This much I agree with, if read in isolation. But you are falsely attributing "prophetic interpretation", so in context the statement is meaningless.

 

5) Given a Prophetic interpretation, I'd say the onus is on you to prove that it is otherwise.

 

Which prophetic interpretation would that be? I know of no prophetic interpretation stating "abortion isn't murder".

[Vort]

(2 of 2)

 

6) I'm separating our religious knowledge of the situation vs earthly means.

 

That's fine. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not we have received revelation vis-à-vis abortion being murder. I am simply looking at what has and has not been stated prophetically on the matter. Contrary to all-too-popular opinion, the prophets most certainly have not taught that abortion is non-murder. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, but arguing that the prophets are not currently treating abortion the same as murder is hardly definitive proof that such is the case.

 

SEMANTICS:

 

My definition of murder from a religious viewpoint is that the victim in question must have a united spirit and body.  To disunite it without cause is considered shedding of innocent blood.  If a body and spirit are not united, then there was no union to disunite.  Therefore, no murder.

 

This presupposes a nuanced understanding of how the spirit and body are united into a single being. You propose a simple model proclaiming that a spirit is either "in" a body or "not in" a body, a binary state of being. In reality, we have no such information on how the spirit and body unite, or even what spirit-body unification means. This goes a great deal beyond any knowledge we have, crossing far into the realm of speculation. I daresay you did not even realize you were speculating -- but you were.

 

This problem actually occurs all the time, usually without recognition. We hold a mental model of what thus-and-such means, and we draw all our conclusions based on that mental model. So when the mental model is shown to be deficient (and such mental models are always deficient, as they must be in a mortal, finite mind), the entire basis of understanding is often uprooted.

 

The Church's official position is WE DO NOT KNOW when the spirit enters the body.  With lack of revelation, we cannot know.  Therefore, from a religious viewpoint, we cannot know that we are committing murder.  Then we go back to the prophetic interpretation as a guidance.

 

I know of no such "prophetic interpretation".

 

If you have a different definition of murder then we'll have a different discussion.

 

Morally speaking, murder is the wrongful and intentional taking of a human life. A human embryo is alive; only the most committed abortionists would argue otherwise. And a human embryo is, well, human, by definition. Elective abortion is an intentional act. Thus, I conclude that wrongful abortion is murder.

[prisonchaplain]

I think, in much of the political discourse on this issue, banning abortion generally while allowing it in cases of rape/incest/preserving the mother's life or health, is considered "moderately pro-choice".

 

I used to toy with approving abortion in cases of rape and incest as a "Devil's agreement" in a secular state.  In other words, better to safe most lives than none.  However, I'm increasingly frustrated with that line of thought.  In a ward/congregation which 5% would I shoot?  On the other hand, I would consider allowing these exceptions on the grounds of justice.  The conceptions take place in the midst of a violent criminal act.  Historically, children suffer when parents sin.  In this case, the mother is given the jurisdiction.  The state says she may disallow the father's sin to bare fruit.  Of course, we're no where near this discussion in the public market.  I'm not even sure I'm settled on the exceptions.  So, I suppose I am more-than-moderately pro-life.

[prisonchaplain]

 Many of us converts to the church have certainly questioned their past views on a ton of issues. From gay marriage (yes, a deepening faith has made me question that one too) to abortion. Screaming/preaching (again, not you. Both sides scream and preach) at the other side might make you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing.  In the end, it's a personal choice one makes to support it or not. 

 

If the pro-life side is right--if the unborn is a human life--then is this not an issue like slavery?  Part of what led to the Civil War was some pretty passionate "yelling" by the Abolitionists.  I can't criticize those who protest/counsel at abortion clinics.  We do not know how many minds we're changed--how many babies were saved.  If I'm not mistaken "Jane Roe" was one of them that became pro-life because of demonstrators.

 

Yep...she did convert on this issue:  http://www.endroe.org/roebio.aspx

Edited January 5, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Guest MormonGator]

If the pro-life side is right--if the unborn is a human life--then is this not an issue like slavery?  Part of what led to the Civil War was some pretty passionate "yelling" by the Abolitionists. 

Well, the civil war was extremely bloody and cost the nation dearly. Living in the rural south (My dad also works in Georgia, so even though I grew up in in New England I know a bit about the southern culture)  I can tell you that there are still bitter feelings. 

 

To me yelling means you can't control yourself. I tune you out (no, not you PC. HUGE respect for you personally and as a man of God) when you raise your voice. I know I'm not alone in this. Both sides are guilty of screaming at each other. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

 

I know of no such "prophetic interpretation".

 

 

I'm not sure really what "prophetic interpretation" means.  But if it's an interpretation made by a Prophet, Val Greenwood of the Temple Department alludes to it here.

 

My understanding is the same as Carb's.  I come from a Catholic standpoint - life begins at conception and purposeful taking of that life - whether it be to save a mother's life or through incest and rape or abortificent properties of artificial birth control or any other means - is murder.  It took me a long time to reconcile the Church's stance on these "exceptions" with Sanctity of Life until I learned of pre-mortal existence and that a spirit claims the body sometime between conception and birth.

Edited January 5, 2016 by anatess

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm not sure really what "prophetic interpretation" means.  But if it's an interpretation made by a Prophet, Val Greenwood of the Temple Department alludes to it here.

 

My understanding is the same as Carb's.  I come from a Catholic standpoint - life begins at conception and purposeful taking of that life - whether it be to save a mother's life or through incest and rape or abortificent properties of artificial birth control or any other means - is murder.  It took me a long time to reconcile the Church's stance on these "exceptions" with Sanctity of Life until I learned of pre-mortal existence and that a spirit claims the body sometime between conception and birth.

 I grew up Catholic too. Went to CCD, and then from 6th-12th grade Catholic school. It did nothing for me. The majority of people who I grew up also left the church. It's funny Anatess-I remember :: gasp :: saying something positive about Joseph Smith in 8th grade and a teacher flipping out on me. Even then I wondered why she was so angry about it. Must have hit a nerve. 

[Guest]

To Vort's two part post:  Difficult to quote each line (too many) so I'll try my best to coordinate.

 

"Like unto": Most people would accept that an apple is "like unto" a pear.  There are many similarities, many similar attributes.  But in no way can they said to be the same.  I believe everyone would say they are different.  And for people with differing tastes, they will certainly argue that they are not equal.  Every scriptural reference where we find this term, it is ALWAYS describing something very similar that doesn't quite fit the same definition of the main term being discussed.

 

Unpardonable:  I'm not sure you caught my insertion of the word "usually".  I intended that to specifically refer to situations akin to the People of Ammon.  As you say, "against the light" is an important conditional.

 

But the current position on the forgivability of abortion has no such conditional.  It is treated as a forgivable offense and it has no such conditional except that a person be truly repentant as with any other sin.

 

Article Author/ Prophetic Interpretation: Regardless of the article's author, the quote came from the "Priesthood Bulletin" described in the references.  Also, the wording in that paragraph came from Pres. David O. McKay as an official statement from the First Presidency.  So, yes, it was spoken by a Prophet.

 

Sin A / Sin B:  This is not a strong argument on your part.  If all things were equal, I'd say it says nothing at all.  But when it is a prophet (and subsequent Church leadership) saying this is our current understanding and our current practice, then it does say something.  It sounds like good logic to me that if we are supposed to treat them differently, it implies that they are indeed different.  How is that illogical?

 

Prophet's teachings on abortion = murder: This is where I think you're losing me or if I am simply not getting... something. 

 

I'm asking you to prove where prophets have said it is murder.  

You've said you don't need to, but are asking me to prove they have said it is NOT murder.

 

I at least have on my side that we are at least treating it differently in an officially religious capacity.  

What is on your side as an officially religious capacity?

If you have nothing, then I'd say the scale is a bit on my side.

 

Spirti/Body Unity:  I presume too much?  Maybe, maybe not.  I realize I'm going back to basics here.  But when the primary manual describes the spirit/body union as a hand in a glove, and hand leaving glove.  I'd say that is at least a simplified way of describing the reality.  This required no speculation other than what is taught from our lesson manuals.

 

If you have further information on this union, tell me.  Is that information based on speculation?  Mine wasn't.  For lack of better information, we go off of what we are taught in an official capacity.

 

Definition:  "only the most committed abortionists would argue otherwise."  I am living proof that is a false statement.  I am definitely against abortion (with exceptions).  I believe there is a change in condition at some point where it becomes a life.  And I have difficulty believing it is at conception.

 

So, since your reasoning is now proven to be false on considering it a life, and again, it is begging the question, I'd say we're at square one for defining a "life".

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

To me yelling means you can't control yourself. I tune you out (no, not you PC. HUGE respect for you personally and as a man of God) when you raise your voice. I know I'm not alone in this. Both sides are guilty of screaming at each other. 

 

I'm going to push on this a bit.  Babies are being butchered inside the clinic, from the pro-life perspective.  Young teenage girls are being told it's right for their future, right for their family's reputation, right for freeing their boyfriend from responsibility...then, when guilt settles in, they're told it's THEIR choice.  Never mind, that it was done for everyone else.  In the mean time, the young bio-dads are told they have not say in the matter, no responsibility (other than, perhaps, to help pay the blood money), and we wonder why they act so irresponsibly.

 

Sometimes I wonder if we know more righteous indignation, rather than less.  We're taught to judge nothing, be angry at nothing, not to get our danders up.  Yes, cool and soft-spoken comes across as dignified, sophisticated, respectable and well-bred.  However, this is an issue where some good, old-fashioned Jeremiah-like shouting might be in order.  Rather than being an issue of control, it might be one of being able to sense the heart of God.

[LeSellers]

Young teenage girls are being told it's right for their future, right for their family's reputation, right for freeing their boyfriend from responsibility...then, when guilt settles in, they're told it's THEIR choice.  Never mind, that it was done for everyone else.  In the mean time, the young bio-dads are told they have not say in the matter, no responsibility (other than, perhaps, to help pay the blood money), and we wonder why they act so irresponsibly.

I have read that the population who supports abortion more than any other is young men between 18~35.

After that, it's women aged 16~25.

Follow the money.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm going to push on this a bit.  Babies are being butchered inside the clinic, from the pro-life perspective.  Young teenage girls are being told it's right for their future, right for their family's reputation, right for freeing their boyfriend from responsibility...then, when guilt settles in, they're told it's THEIR choice.  Never mind, that it was done for everyone else.  In the mean time, the young bio-dads are told they have not say in the matter, no responsibility (other than, perhaps, to help pay the blood money), and we wonder why they act so irresponsibly.

 

Sometimes I wonder if we know more righteous indignation, rather than less.  We're taught to judge nothing, be angry at nothing, not to get our danders up.  Yes, cool and soft-spoken comes across as dignified, sophisticated, respectable and well-bred.  However, this is an issue where some good, old-fashioned Jeremiah-like shouting might be in order.  Rather than being an issue of control, it might be one of being able to sense the heart of God.

 But you might only be preaching to the choir PC. Pro lifers are great at that, but sometimes their message gets lost to those in the middle. 

[prisonchaplain]

You're right, Gator.  You speak to the middle...I'll try to get the choir to wake up from its nap.  :-)

[Vort]

 

"Like unto": Most people would accept that an apple is "like unto" a pear.  There are many similarities, many similar attributes.  But in no way can they said to be the same.  I believe everyone would say they are different.  And for people with differing tastes, they will certainly argue that they are not equal.  Every scriptural reference where we find this term, it is ALWAYS describing something very similar that doesn't quite fit the same definition of the main term being discussed.

 

Which is exactly what you are not doing. "Abortion is like unto murder, except that it's not murder at all and is in no way morally comparable to murder, because murder is much, much worse, completely and by far worse than abortion ever can be. But abortion is still like unto it." Doesn't work.

 

Unpardonable:  I'm not sure you caught my insertion of the word "usually".  I intended that to specifically refer to situations akin to the People of Ammon.  As you say, "against the light" is an important conditional.

 

But the current position on the forgivability of abortion has no such conditional.  It is treated as a forgivable offense and it has no such conditional except that a person be truly repentant as with any other sin.

 

Any sin can be repented of. Any sin. The only exception to that is the denial of the Holy Ghost, which you want to equate to murder, except when you don't. That's pretty weak sauce.

 

Article Author/ Prophetic Interpretation: Regardless of the article's author, the quote came from the "Priesthood Bulletin" described in the references.  Also, the wording in that paragraph came from Pres. David O. McKay as an official statement from the First Presidency.  So, yes, it was spoken by a Prophet.

 

And let us review that statement:

 

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.

 

No reasonable person can interpret this as being a pronouncement of the word of God on the matter.

 

Sin A / Sin B:  This is not a strong argument on your part.  If all things were equal, I'd say it says nothing at all.

 

Pooh-poohing my argument neither weakens my position nor bolsters yours.

 

But when it is a prophet (and subsequent Church leadership) saying this is our current understanding and our current practice, then it does say something.

 

Sure it does. It says it's our current understanding and practice.

 

It sounds like good logic to me that if we are supposed to treat them differently, it implies that they are indeed different.  How is that illogical?

 

Your illogic is in ignoring the open words of the prophets: "[N]o definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion." Yet you want to make a definitive statement that abortion is not murder. You are wrong. There can be no such definitive statement in a moral sense.

 

Prophet's teachings on abortion = murder: This is where I think you're losing me or if I am simply not getting... something. 

 

I'm asking you to prove where prophets have said it is murder.  

You've said you don't need to, but are asking me to prove they have said it is NOT murder.

 

Re-examine the quote above. The prophets have taught that the Lord has not made a definitive statement on whether abortion is murder. You keep ignoring this, but it is central to your claim and to your entire justification, since you are trying to base it on a revelatory foundation. (Which you cannot do, give the statement above.)

 

My argument is based on simple, clear reasoning about a definition of murder: "The intentional, wrongful taking of a human life." Based on that definition, elective abortion is normally murder. Period.

 

Except for you, who wants to argue that somehow, a human fetus is not really alive because it has no heartbeat okay, it has a hearbeat but it doesn't breathe okay, it breathes but it doesn't move well, yes, of course it moves, but it doesn't dream maybe it does dream, but it isn't alive because Carborendum doesn't want it to be alive because that would mean that killing it is murder, which Carborendum doesn't want. This is not a reasonable or logical way of thinking.

 

Face it, Carb. The real reason you claim that a fetus or embryo isn't "really" alive is because you have some personal unsubstantiated theories about "ensoulment" and about how a spirit enters a body, at what point in that process it's considered being "alive", and so forth, all of which are pure speculation on your part, unrevealed, and completely useless for drawing moral lines or making policy. Yet this is what you insist on when trying to define terms for abortion: "An unborn baby isn't really alive, or at least may not be, because saying otherwise -- however compelling the prenatal evidence -- would strongly imply that elective abortion is, indeed, the wrongful taking of an innocent human life, and I don't want that." I suggest that such head-in-the-sand tactics are less than honest and are beneath you.

 

I at least have on my side that we are at least treating it differently in an officially religious capacity.  

What is on your side as an officially religious capacity?

If you have nothing, then I'd say the scale is a bit on my side.

 

The Lord has not made a definitive statement on whether abortion is murder. Period.

 

Thus, you have nothing on "your side". Church policy and how we currently treat this or that issue in no possible way defines or suggests whether elective abortion is murder in a moral sense.

 

So the scales are completely on my side. One hundred percent.

 

 

Spirti/Body Unity:  I presume too much?  Maybe, maybe not.  I realize I'm going back to basics here.  But when the primary manual describes the spirit/body union as a hand in a glove, and hand leaving glove.  I'd say that is at least a simplified way of describing the reality.  This required no speculation other than what is taught from our lesson manuals.

 

If you have further information on this union, tell me.  Is that information based on speculation?  Mine wasn't.  For lack of better information, we go off of what we are taught in an official capacity.

 

Let me make sure I understand your argument correctly:

 

A Primary teacher shows the children a hand in a glove and compares that to our spirits in our bodies. Therefore, the best official Church teaching that we have is that ensoulment is a singular event and that a spirit's attachment to a body is a binary condition.

 

Do I understand you correctly? If so, I am happy to let your statement stand as its own rebuttal.

 

So, since your reasoning is now proven to be false on considering it a life, and again, it is begging the question, I'd say we're at square one for defining a "life".

 

I probably should have said "any reasonable person". :) <--(Just a joke. Carb is a reasonable person. He's just wrong on this issue, and is either too stubborn or too close to the situation to see it.)

 

I also suspect you don't understand what "begging the question" means. If you do, then I'm the one not getting it. Please explain how my reasoning begs the question.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Vort

[Guest]

Vort, I want you to know that I've posted everything thus far in a fairly unemotional manner.  I'm just trying to have an open discussion.  But as the weakness of internet posting rears its ugly head, I'm getting the impression that you are saying quite a bit in anger.  Please assure me you are not.

 

That said, I believe the argument boils down to this:

 

1) NO prophetic statement has been made about whether it is or is not murder.  

2) NO prophetic statement has been made about whether the embryo is alive or not from a religious perspective.

3) You have taken this lack of statement to mean it is murder and the embryo is alive.

4) I've taken it to mean that we don't know and therefore can't say it is.

 

Is that how you are seeing it?

 

You've asked me to prove my point about ensoulment.  I gave what I know.  And to my knowledge, no other statements have been said.  

 

You can ridicule it all you want, but as simple as it is, as childish as it is, there is no other revelation we've been given on it.  But for some reason you've claimed you know more.  But you have yet to explain what that "more" is nor the sources from which you derive your position.

 

HONESTLY, I'd like to know more.  If you can provide some quotes I WANT TO KNOW MORE.  My entire point has been that when we don't have information we cannot use that lack of information to justify anything.  But you have used lack of information to say I'm wrong for saying we don't know.

 

BTW, many of the accusations in your last post -- I never said any of that.  You've somehow made that up from abortionists positions, which I do not share.