Probably a "different" kind of Christian...

[Guest]

I believe I need to reiterate this:  I am pro-life.  I would be happy if all abortion were illegal except if the mother's life or health are in jeopardy.

 

But the series of posts I've made are to indicate:

 

The Church's position on when life begins or if abortion equates to murder is unclear.  Specifically: WE DON'T KNOW.

 

Because of that lack of knowledge, we cannot use available revelation to make definitive statements on the matter.  If you want to use other means to do so, of course, that is your position.  And if it is a logical one, I'd probably be willing to go along with you.

[Guest]

"Begging the Question": A form of circular logic.  Assuming A is correct, B is also true.  And since B is true, A is also true.

 

You said

 

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.

 

Specifically the underlined portion.  We were talking about it being alive.  I don't necessarily say you're wrong.  It may be that at some point during the embryo phase, it is alive.  I just have trouble believing it is from the moment of conception.

 

Your only proof is that only those adamantly opposed to believing it would disbelieve it.  So because people believe it, it must be true?  Circular reasoning.

 

If, however, you are saying that it is a self-evident truth... That is not necessarily circular reasoning.  But I don't necessarily see the validity of it.  As I consider myself a "reasonable non-abortionist"  :) and since I once used to believe this (that it was alive since conception) yet I'm being drawn to different conclusions (not that I have a final answer on it, yet) by reading the words of the prophets, I would say it is not self-evident.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

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.

It doesn't work because that is not what I said.  I think part of the disagreement is that you are reading far too much into my words.  I never said "it is in no way comparable to murder."  In fact I voiced agreement to your objection to that statement which I never made.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

 

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.

 

I didn't see that in Vorts post, Carb.  He even complimented you. I don't see it in yours either, of course. You know I got huge respect for both of you! 

This is a highly charged, emotional topic. It's probably a good idea to tread very carefully on this one so we don't let our emotions take over. We're all brothers in the end. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

 

My thought, FWIW, is that even if we say life begins at conception--the continued gestation/delivery of a child conceived through rape/incest may result in debilitating emotional, and perhaps in some cases physical, trauma for the victim.  In such cases, I think the victim should have the legal leeway she needs to prevent her being subjected to additional harm--up to and including killing the person who (even innocently) threatens to inflict that harm.

[Guest]

I didn't see that in Vorts post, Carb.  He even complimented you. I don't see it in yours either, of course. You know I got huge respect for both of you! 

This is a highly charged, emotional topic. It's probably a good idea to tread very carefully on this one so we don't let our emotions take over. We're all brothers in the end. 

Gator,

 

I think you're just too good-natured.  Someone could be screaming profanities right in your face and calling you a son of a motherless goat and you'd say, "So, you want some cheese?"  Or, "should I shave this goatee?"

 

I love you too, bro.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Gator,

 

I think you're just too good-natured.  Someone could be screaming profanities right in your face and calling you a son of a motherless goat and you'd say, "So, you want some cheese?"  Or, "should I shave this goatee?"

 

I love you too, bro.

 LOL!!! I love that!! LOL!!!! 

 

(and you want to see me get angry? Ask me to cut my hair! Or shave!! LOL!) 

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

a child conceived through rape/incest may result in debilitating emotional, and perhaps in some cases physical, trauma for the victim.  In such cases, I think the victim should have the legal leeway she needs to prevent her being subjected to additional harm--up to and including killing the person who (even innocently) threatens to inflict that harm.

While I can commensurate with a woman in such a case, emotional distress is simply not on the same level as death.

If I were in charge (first, there'd be no rape, but that's not a likely outcome), she would find comfort in having a child and letting another woman raise him, a woman who would need that child. (One of our daughters-in-law is unable to bear children, and I know how horrific that is.)

There is no justification I can accept that covers killing an innocent child whose sole sin is being the son of an evil man or the daughter of a wicked woman.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

 LOL!!! I love that!! LOL!!!! 

 

(and you want to see me get angry? Ask me to cut my hair! Or shave!! LOL!) 

So asking you to shave gets your "goat" does it?

[Just_A_Guy]

While I can commensurate with a woman in such a case, emotional distress is simply nont on the same level as death.

 

If that is abstractly, absolutely true, then a woman is not justified in using deadly force to defend herself from rape; so long as it appears her rapist has no intent to actually kill her.  Because while rape is physically invasive, the harm of the deed is primarily emotional/psychological in nature. 

 

And moreover, sometimes self-defense involves the need to take a life that is, by all objective measures, innocent.  A person in the midst of a psychosis who comes at me is a knife is not, in my view, morally culpable--he doesn't know what he's doing--but I'm still well within my moral and legal rights to shoot him.

 

 

If I were in charge (first, there'd be no rape, but that's not a likely outcome), she would find comfort in having a child and letting another woman raise him, a woman who would need that child. (One of our daughters-in-law is unable to bear children, and I know how horrific that is.)

 

I would hope rape victims would find it within themselves to do that; but it seems like for a certain proportion of such cases the human mind just isn't wired that way.  For such women, every moment is a new violation.  I've seen what the results can be--"catastrophic" doesn't begin to describe it.  I've known one or two cases where I felt--and this is a horrible thing to say--but I really felt those women would have been better off dead.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

So asking you to shave gets your "goat" does it?

 Hee hee. What does it...hmmm...oh I know. What really gets me is when I run out of witty comments and replies. Like I have with this post. 

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by MormonGator

[zil]

 LOL!!! I love that!! LOL!!!! 

 

(and you want to see me get angry? Ask me to cut my hair! Or shave!! LOL!) 

 

   Meanwhile, we may have a deal-breaker here.  I really don't like beards (on my husbands, I mean; I couldn't care less whether anyone else has a beard).

[LeSellers]

If that is abstractly, absolutely true, then a woman is not justified in using deadly force to defend herself from rape; so long as it appears her rapist has no intent to actually kill her.  Because while rape is physically invasive, the harm of the deed is primarily emotional/psychological in nature.

That's ridiculous: it carries the point well beyond anything reasonable.

The question resolves into identifying the party initiating violence.

In the case of abortion, the child (except in the extremely rare case where the mother's life is in imminent danger) initiates no force whatsoever. In the vast majority of cases, the woman invited him into her body by consenting to the intercourse that resulted in his existing (physically), and, in the cases we're discussing, the child is still hers, biologically, no less than had the father been her moral (eliminating incest — but not all incest is rape) husband. So the woman has every right to defend herself from rape, even if she kills him (and we may hope she does). It's not because her emotional distress would be greater than his life, but because her right to be left alone, unmolested, is greater than his life.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I would hope rape victims would find it within themselves to do that; but it seems like for a certain proportion of such cases the human mind just isn't wired that way.  For such women, every moment is a new violation.  I've seen what the results can be--"catastrophic" doesn't begin to describe it.  I've known one or two cases where I felt--and this is a horrible thing to say--but I really felt those women would have been better off dead.

These women need support for their mental problem, and make no mistake, I agree, it is, and should be a violation and problem, but hardly to that degree.

But with help, they can surmount that hurdle. A dead baby ain't gonna get better.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

That's ridiculous: it carries the point well beyond anything reasonable.

The question resolves into identifying the party initiating violence.

 

I'd be interested to see you engage the hypothetical about the mentally ill knife-attacker, then.  If I know he's mentally ill (and, therefore, morally guiltless), does that mean I have to let him kill or mutilate me (or at least, that I may not use lethal force in my own self-defense)?

 

 

In the case of abortion, the child (except in the extremely rare case where the mother's life is in imminent danger) initiates no force whatsoever. In the vast majority of cases, the woman invited him into her body by consenting to the intercourse that resulted in his existing (physically), and, in the cases we're discussing, the child is still hers, biologically, no less than had the father been her moral (eliminating incest — but not all incest is rape) husband. So the woman has every right to defend herself from rape, even if she kills him (and we may hope she does). It's not because her emotional distress would be greater than his life, but because her right to be left alone, unmolested, is greater than his life.

 

I'm intrigued by your implicit suggestion that where a mother's life is in imminent danger, the child is initiating some sort of force against which the mother has a right to defend herself through lethal means (i.e., abortion).  Because that would create a logical contradiction that I have trouble resolving.  You appear to say that a woman can voluntarily become pregnant, and abort the child because the child creates a risk of grave physical harm.  But if a woman involuntarily becomes pregnant, she must not abort the child even if the child creates a risk of grave psychological harm.

 

The only way I can reconcile this is by assuming that psychological harm is somehow less damaging or less "real" than physical harm is; and that's not an assumption I'm willing to make.

 

These women need support for their mental problem, and make no mistake, I agree, it is, and should be a violation and problem, but hardly to that degree.

But with help, they can surmount that hurdle. A dead baby ain't gonna get better.

 

What, exactly, do you mean by "surmount[ing] that hurdle"?  Would you speak with such assurance if the "hurdle" was a physical maiming, rather than a psychological injury?

 

And again, this logic seems to lead to the conclusion that a person must submit to any and all threatened physical or psychological harm, regardless of the consequences; so long as the instigator of the harm is "guiltless".  If you don't follow that logic to its ultimate conclusion, then where do you depart from it?  Where's the line?  That the person suffering the harm is a woman?  That the threatened harm is psychological rather than physical?  That the perpetrator of the harm is an innocent, incompetent infant rather than an innocent, incompetent adult?  Something else?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

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

I very much agree with this. I am very pro-life; I don't really like the Church's exceptions but I think that is where the individual has the option to choose without any type of Church discipline.

 

So while I'm uber pro-life; I do draw a very distinct line for the legality of abortion. One of the very difficult issues in the pro. vs. pro. debate is when exactly does life begin. I don't know when exactly, but I figure it is pretty close to conception; however I know this is pretty hard to prove and a lot of people may not accept this. However, I believe we can definitely say at what point life can survive without being in the mother.  Modern technology has increased the number of months that a baby can be premature and survive. I think most rational people (on both pro. sides) can say, yes being able to survive outside the mother definitively constitutes life.

 

I see no reason why for legality purposes only that abortion be made illegal after that point minus a couple of weeks for fudge room. As technology increases and the months born prior to normal birth increase, then the week at which abortion becomes illegal decreases too.

 

It's not perfect, but it's about the best I can figure given all the sides and issues.

[LeSellers]

I'd be interested to see you engage the hypothetical about the mentally ill knife-attacker, then.  If I know he's mentally ill (and, therefore, morally guiltless), does that mean I have to let him kill or mutilate me (or at least, that I may not use lethal force in my own self-defense)?

It's an imminent danger: I'd protect myself as best I could, even if it required killing him.

 

I'm intrigued by your implicit suggestion that where a mother's life is in imminent danger, the child is initiating some sort of force against which the mother has a right to defend herself through lethal means (i.e., abortion).  Because that would create a logical contradiction that I have trouble resolving.  You appear to say that a woman can voluntarily become pregnant, and abort the child because the child creates a risk of grave physical harm.  But if a woman involuntarily becomes pregnant, she must not abort the child even if the child creates a risk of grave psychological harm.

My suggestion is not implicit. I said it explicitly. That harm is unintentional: the baby is not trying to hurt his mother, but that threat is very real. As I have said several times, mental, psychological harm is not terminal. She has no right to kill her child unless that threat is very, very likely to be fatal.

 

The only way I can reconcile this is by assuming that psychological harm is somehow less damaging or less "real" than physical harm is; and that's not an assumption I'm willing to make.

I differ: mental harm is not permanent unless the person decides (even unconsciously) to let it continue. No one ,by taking thought, can restore a limb or a life. I'm not claiming it is easy, but it is possible. A dead baby ain't gonna get better.

 

What, exactly, do you mean by "surmount[ing] that hurdle"?  Would you speak with such assurance if the "hurdle" was a physical maiming, rather than a psychological injury?

Physical harm, fatal physical harm cannot be reversed, mental issues can be: they are not terminal. The child of rape, once killed, is not going to come back. We Saints can plead that the spirit that would have been in that body will have another chance, but he will not be that child.

 

And again, this logic seems to lead to the conclusion that a person must submit to any and all threatened physical or psychological harm, regardless of the consequences; so long as the instigator of the harm is "guiltless".  If you don't follow that logic to its ultimate conclusion, then where do you depart from it?

I don't: he who initiates violence may be killed in defense of life or limb.

 

Where's the line?  That the person suffering the harm is a woman?

Nice — subtle accusation of sexism.

 

That the threatened harm is psychological rather than physical?

If there is a line, yes, that would be it.

 

That the perpetrator of the harm is an innocent, incompetent infant rather than an innocent, incompetent adult?  Something else?

Nothing to do with innocence: it's the initiation of force. Not about incompetence, it's about the initiation of force.

Life is not "fair": "fair" is where you go to see pigs. Life is dealing with inherently unfair circumstances. One has the right to defend himself from imminent harm. Pregnancy rarely presents such a threat. When it does, the mother has the right to defend herself, even if the defense is lethal. But, absent an imminent threat, the reaction must not harm a non-violent other, no matter the situation.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

I'm intrigued by your implicit suggestion that where a mother's life is in imminent danger, the child is initiating some sort of force against which the mother has a right to defend herself through lethal means (i.e., abortion).  Because that would create a logical contradiction that I have trouble resolving.  You appear to say that a woman can voluntarily become pregnant, and abort the child because the child creates a risk of grave physical harm.  But if a woman involuntarily becomes pregnant, she must not abort the child even if the child creates a risk of grave psychological harm.

 

 

And again, this logic seems to lead to the conclusion that a person must submit to any and all threatened physical or psychological harm, regardless of the consequences; so long as the instigator of the harm is "guiltless".  If you don't follow that logic to its ultimate conclusion, then where do you depart from it?  Where's the line?  That the person suffering the harm is a woman?  That the threatened harm is psychological rather than physical?  That the perpetrator of the harm is an innocent, incompetent infant rather than an innocent, incompetent adult?  Something else?

 

Help me out here.  I'm having difficulty figuring out why you're extrapolating these statements from Lehi's posts.

 

His position is all about initiation of force.  It does not exclude innocence or lack of ill intent.  Force is force.  The baby was not initiating force against the mother unless, medically, her life is in danger.  In the case of rape, the baby is not the one who initiated force.

 

The mentally ill person you speak of whether innocent or not, whether responsible or not, IS INITIATING FORCE.

 

Problem resolved.  What am I missing?

[zil]

I find it amusing that two (maybe 3 now?) men, who are biologically incapable of beginning to imagine what it might be like for a woman to:

 

a) Be impregnated against her will and carry that child to term (and either give that child up or keep it)

 

or

 

b) Be impregnated against her will and choose to abort the pregnancy

 

..., are debating what to do in such a situation.

 

A woman who has never given birth can only _begin_ to imagine what that might be like.  A woman who has given birth is infinitely more qualified than any of them.  But only a woman who's been there really knows.  Every woman's situation and capacity will be different (even two who are able to make the same choice will still feel differently about it).  There's a reason some of God's counsel is generic until specific guidance is sought by the individuals directly involved.

[Just_A_Guy]

I differ: mental harm is not permanent unless the person decides (even unconsciously) to let it continue. No one ,by taking thought, can restore a limb or a life. I'm not claiming it is easy, but it is possible. A dead baby ain't gonna get better.

Physical harm, fatal physical harm cannot be reversed, mental issues can be: they are not terminal.

 

This, perhaps, is the core of our disagreement.  Science hasn't mastered all the illnesses of the physical body; why should we think it has mastered all of the illnesses of the mind?

 

Now, if you're talking about the Atonement and it's power for healing--I wouldn't dispute that at all, at least in theory.  But it's worth noting that even the Church allows for abortion for rape victims.  And I think it's problematic, from a political standpoint, to order non-LDS or non-Christian rape victims into LDS-doctrine-based recovery units.

 

Nothing to do with innocence: it's the initiation of force. Not about incompetence, it's about the initiation of force.

 

And (to make sure I'm understanding)--"force" here = a physical harm, but not a psychological one?

 

 

Life is not "fair": "fair" is where you go to see pigs. Life is dealing with inherently unfair circumstances. One has the right to defend himself from imminent harm. Pregnancy rarely presents such a threat. When it does, the mother has the right to defend herself, even if the defense is lethal. But, absent an imminent threat, the reaction must not harm a non-violent other, no matter the situation.

 

100% agree with this; it sounds like we just differ in our definitions of "harm".  Is that a fair summation?

[LeSellers]

I find it amusing that two (maybe 3 now?) men, who are biologically incapable of beginning to imagine what it might be like for a woman to: …

Be amused if you will. The sexist implication is noted.

The discussion is philosophical, not necessarily practical. Nonetheless, if anyone can demonstrate that emotion should trump logic, so be it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

And (to make sure I'm understanding)--"force" here = a physical harm, but not a psychological one?

Yes. 

 

it sounds like we just differ in our definitions of "harm".  Is that a fair summation?

Yes.

Lehi

[Vort]

I find it amusing that two (maybe 3 now?) men, who are biologically incapable of beginning to imagine what it might be like for a woman to:

 

a) Be impregnated against her will and carry that child to term (and either give that child up or keep it)

 

or

 

b) Be impregnated against her will and choose to abort the pregnancy

 

..., are debating what to do in such a situation.

 

Do you honestly believe that men are biologically incapable of even beginning to imagine what it would be like for a woman to be raped and give birth/abort the baby?

 

Seriously?

 

Bummer about Jesus being a man, I guess.

[LeSellers]

Science hasn't mastered all the illnesses of the physical body; why should we think it has mastered all of the illnesses of the mind?

We shouldn't. But there is no evidence I'm aware of that a trauma, such as rape, has ever forced anyone to become irremediably psychotic.

But even then, a mental condition is not sufficient justification for killing a non-violent child.

 

Now, if you're talking about the Atonement and it's power for healing--I wouldn't dispute that at all, at least in theory.  But it's worth noting that even the Church allows for abortion for rape victims.  And I think it's problematic, from a political standpoint, to order non-LDS or non-Christian rape victims into LDS-doctrine-based recovery units.

I do not initiate force. I do not advocate that anyone be ordered to do much of anything, unless he's a child who cannot care for himself.

 

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

Help me out here.  I'm having difficulty figuring out why you're extrapolating these statements from Lehi's posts.

 

My first summation, as near as I can tell, turned out to be accurate; and Lehi seems to resolve the conundrum by suggesting that psychological harm is not comparable to physical harm--or that psychological harm is not an "initiation of force" justifying the use of lethal force in self-defense.

 

My second summation, of course, turned out to be inaccurate and borne of a misunderstanding.  It happens. 

 

 

 

His position is all about initiation of force.  It does not exclude innocence or lack of ill intent.  Force is force.  The baby was not initiating force against the mother unless, medically, her life is in danger.  In the case of rape, the baby is not the one who initiated force.

 

Which clarification I appreciate; but the bottom line seems to be that both babies threaten continued trauma to the mother.  It's just that one threatens physical trauma whereas the other threatens psychological trauma.

 

I would be interested in digging into this definition of "initiating force" more.  We (seem to) have established that culpability is irrelevant, and that the resultant psychological trauma to the victim is irrelevant.  All that is relevant is that physical force seems imminent.  On what basis, then, do we say that a woman is justified in shooting a man who tries to rape her, but is not justified in shooting a man who merely attempts to grab her hand or steal a kiss?