Probably a "different" kind of Christian...

[Guest]

I actually like her.

 

She's important in her role as the woman who started the conversation.  But, as far as her feminist views... it is not feminism.  It is misandry.

[Guest MormonGator]

She's important in her role as the woman who started the conversation.  But, as far as her feminist views... it is not feminism.  It is misandry.

 Nope.  She enjoyed the company of men and married two of them. Could it be misinterpreted as man hating? If you read into it that way, yes. But it wasn't. Robin Morgan did though. 

She (Dworkin) did a TON of work against harassment, rape, child sexual abuse. She's hardly the "man hater" that her critics make her out to be. She did a lot of good in the world. Did she have controversial views? Some.

Give her books another read. You might like them. Seriously. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

 Not really. She enjoyed the company of men and married two of them. Could it be misinterpreted as man hating? If you read into it that way, yes. But it wasn't. Robin Morgan did though. 

She did a TON of work against harassment, rape, child sexual abuse. She's hardly the "man hater" that her critics make her out to be. 

 

Yes really.  Misandry is not just hating men.  Misandry is prejudice against men.  In her quest to make women equal to men, she was more focused on bringing men down than raising women up.

[Guest MormonGator]

Yes really.  Misandry is not just hating men.  Misandry is prejudice against men.  In her quest to make women equal to men, she was more focused on bringing men down than raising women up.

No, I don't see it that way at all. In the majority of her books she's certainly pro-woman, but if you really read them you'll find she's hardly prejudiced against men. If she was, she wouldn't marry them or have friends who were men. If I'm prejudiced against something, then I wouldn't associate myself with them, much less marry them. Does she want to drastically redefine gender roles? I'll give her that yes. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

No, I don't see it that way at all. In the majority of her books she's certainly pro-woman, but if you really read them you'll find she'd hardly prejudiced agains them. If she was, should wouldn't marry them or have friends who were men. If I'm prejudiced against something, then I wouldn't associate myself with them, much less marry them. 

 

Not necessarily... think of Dworkin's philosophy that the then-current patriarchy is misogynistic where men culturally treat women as their inferiors.  There's no shortage of men marrying women in that world view.

[Guest MormonGator]

Not necessarily... think of Dworkin's philosophy that the then-current patriarchy is misogynistic where men culturally treat women as their inferiors.  There's no shortage of men marrying women in that world view.

 Like I said in a private message, isn't this great? You have the girl (Anatess) arguing that a famous feminist was anti-male and the boy(Me) arguing that a famous feminist wasn't. 

Who says LDS can't be truly diverse? Isn't it great? 

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Gator,

 

From just the list of quotes from Anatess, how does that mean something other than "any heterosexual engagement is rape."

[Guest MormonGator]

Gator,

 

From just the list of quotes from Anatess, how does that mean something other than "any heterosexual engagement is rape."

 Because it's not what she said. 

[Guest]

So, those were all false quotes?

[Guest MormonGator]

So, those were all false quotes?

You have to take them in context. When you read her entire book you will see what she meant. A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich too. 

Dworkin also said on record many, many times (She was always asked about this quote)-that it isn't what she meant. It really is like the Lennon quote on Jesus Christ. I freely admit it sounds bad, but in reality anything can if you take it out of context. 

I love conversations like this. It shows that LDS can think independently on a ton of issues-even controversial ones where we are sharply opposed-and still remain civil and polite. How many other forums/groups can say that? Not many.  

Edited January 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

I'm going to pick nits here just for my benefit.  I've got to be able to keep things straight.  

 

A "misquote" means that the words were not truthfully relayed.  Misworded or completely false from the get go.

 

A "misinterpretation" means that while the words are correct, the meaning was somehow twisted (often for lack of context or false context).

 

I heard the Lennon quote as an isolated quote and I understood exactly what he meant.  And I found it to be inaccurate, but completely understandable for him to say.

 

My question in #132 was me asking you (since you read the books) to explain the context.

[Guest]

I'm going to pick nits here just for my benefit.  I've got to be able to keep things straight.  

 

A "misquote" means that the words were not truthfully relayed.  Misworded or completely false from the get go.

 

A "misinterpretation" means that while the words are correct, the meaning was somehow twisted (often for lack of context or false context).

 

I heard the Lennon quote as an isolated quote and I understood exactly what he meant.  And I found it to be inaccurate, but completely understandable for him to say.

 

My question in #132 was me asking you (since you read the books) to explain the context.

 

It is nuanced...

 

But if I may attempt at simplification, Dworkin believes that male-female relationships are broken.  It is not that feminism cannot exist in male-female relationships, it is simply that the evolvement of society - and yes, she applies it to the worldwide general public - broke it.

 

So yes, she does say that sexual intercourse by virtue of its biology is violent.  She also says that intercourse, by virtue of the man being physically stronger than the woman gives unbalanced power to the man.  She concludes, therefore, that feminism cannot exist in sexual intercourse until a shift of power is afforded to the woman to counter the physical prowess of a man.  Her statement that a man without his erection may provide that balance comes from this viewpoint.  The thing about Dworkin is she believes that man's discovery that he can wield his genetalia as a weapon is the reason for patriarchy that buries feminism.  Therefore, to restore feminism, man's genitalia has to be rendered powerless. 

 

You kinda have to understand that Dworkin's family are holocaust survivors.  She was raped when she was a pre-teen and then again when she got sent to jail for her actions against the Vietnam War she was raped multiple times and so badly that she had to be hospitalized.  Her husband abused her for years.  It was out of this abuse that she clawed her way out with her first book.  She viewed marriage in her time as an institution that promoted enslaving unsuspecting women and the male children that are byproducts of this union as the next slave master.

 

Yes, her Jewish background allowed her to not hate men but she does believe deeply that the male species is flawed.

Edited January 8, 2016 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

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.

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".

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.

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

Actually there is one other situation. If a woman is forced into raising a child with absolutely no agreement on her part on any step of the way, then As soon as she has the freedom to make the choice, to either be rid of the child or to care for it, and either would be just. (if the child was already born at his point there would also have to be none else willing to raise the child either). The death of the child would be upon the one(s) who forced it upon the woman.

[Guest]

It is nuanced...

 

But if I may attempt at simplification, Dworkin believes that male-female relationships are broken.  It is not that feminism cannot exist in male-female relationships, it is simply that the evolvement of society - and yes, she applies it to the worldwide general public - broke it.

 

So yes, she does say that sexual intercourse by virtue of its biology is violent.  She also says that intercourse, by virtue of the man being physically stronger than the woman gives unbalanced power to the man.  She concludes, therefore, that feminism cannot exist in sexual intercourse until a shift of power is afforded to the woman to counter the physical prowess of a man.  Her statement that a man without his erection may provide that balance comes from this viewpoint.  The thing about Dworkin is she believes that man's discovery that he can wield his genetalia as a weapon is the reason for patriarchy that buries feminism.  Therefore, to restore feminism, man's genitalia has to be rendered powerless. 

 

You kinda have to understand that Dworkin's family are holocaust survivors.  She was raped when she was a pre-teen and then again when she got sent to jail for her actions against the Vietnam War she was raped multiple times and so badly that she had to be hospitalized.  Her husband abused her for years.  It was out of this abuse that she clawed her way out with her first book.  She viewed marriage in her time as an institution that promoted enslaving unsuspecting women and the male children that are byproducts of this union as the next slave master.

 

Yes, her Jewish background allowed her to not hate men but she does believe deeply that the male species is flawed.

 

This is not nuanced.  It is just a question of context.  If that is the best context you can give, it only takes it back about one step or less from the absolute position.  Take the emotion out of it and the only difference from the absolute position and the position stated here is that she believes it CAN be balanced.  But AS IT IS IN TODAY'S SOCIETY, it is always rape -- end of story.

 

This is now getting off topic, if we want to continue, maybe we should start a new thread on feminism or something.  Then again, maybe this is breaking forum rules as it is and we should stop talking about it.  It may seem like a natural partner topic to abortion.  And I believe abortion needs to be discussed.  But there are rules.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2, not so much, because I reject the idea that the primary damage of rape is psychological before it happens. The terror of anticipating rape is palpable, and it has physical manifestations that parallel the same fear as if the threat were about being killed. In fact, the victim does not know how it will end: he could be killed after to keep him quiet or to fulfill the final fantasy.

Finally, the threat of rape is, by definition, prior to the fact, and that chronology is what makes it different. One has the God-given right to defend himself from likely physical harm, and if that defense is lethal, so be it.

 

It seems you're saying that a woman can only use lethal force to defend herself from rape because the rape may cause physical harm.  Therefore, it would stand to reason that if she's reasonably certain that the rape will not cause physical harm or death, she may not use lethal force in self-defense?

 

There is a name for this kind of "what if" questioning that JAG did.  I forget what it is -- some type of straw man.  It is a forced story that 1) would likely never happen.  2) Creates a false sense of responsibility on one party that is not really responsible.  3) It draws parallels that are sophistry.  Such questions are often tilted to one direction because of the way the scenario is put together.

 

Then again, Lehi put out a hypothetical about a rape accomplished, not by threat of force against the woman; but by threat of force against her family members; and no one called him on it.

 

And, the fact that you're convinced "that would never happen!!!" is kind of my point.  Men, by and large, don't have to imagine themselves in this sort of scenario; which I think does sometimes lead to a certain glibness in dictating the preferred response of women who do get into this sort of scenario.

 

Scenario one: You see a child playing on railroad track #1.  You see a train full of passengers coming on railroad track #2.  You see that track #2 takes the train off a cliff.  (obviously there was some mistake at the switching controls).  There is also a manual switch you can throw to divert the train away from the cliff and toward the child.  What do you do?

 

Scenario two: Only one track.  No child.  But there is a really fat guy that would not really stop the train, but it would cause problems such that the train would probably avoid the cliff.  People might get hurt.  But they'd live.  What do you do?

 

It's one thing to remain inactive and just let something happen.  It is quite another to take an active role that has a direct effect on someone else.  This is the underlying philosophy behind the original Hippocratic oath that said "I shall do no harm."  Many doctors throughout history allowed the suffering of their patients because to relieve them of it, they would be required to do unacceptable harm.

 

If you say the soldier is in any way responsible for what happens to the child, you're also saying that God is responsible for all the sin in the world.  That simply isn't so.

 

Well, to clarify, I'm talking about legal obligations, not moral ones.

 

And, the decision-maker in either hypothetical, is not the one with their own neck on the line.  To be analogous to a rape-resultant pregnancy, the question you should be asking is whether (in the first hypothetical) the child should be under a legal obligation to pull the switch and cause his own death (and go to jail if he doesn't); or (in the second hypothetical) the fat guy should be under a legal obligation to throw himself onto the rail (and again, go to jail if he doesn't).

 

Of course self-defense is codified in law.  But, the law does not codify self-defense as the taking of an innocent life when your own life is in danger.  Self-defense is codified as - the person you killed is actively trying to kill you.  The baby or the Kurdish girl is not the person the soldier is defending himself against.

 

Hmm.  The thing is, due to mental health issues or whatever, my attacker can be both an aggressor and morally/legally innocent.  I am not, in such a scenario, required to put down my gun--I have a legal and moral right to look out for number one.  All that's required is a reasonable fear that my own safety is in jeopardy; I don't have to analyze my attacker's moral processes.

 

The soldier, of course, does not have to submit to rape to save the life of the Kurdish girl in the same EQUAL token as the girl does not have to submit to death to save the soldier.  In the case of the Kurdish girl, she has a slim chance of being able to defend herself.  The baby has none.  The baby is silenced - ESPECIALLY, if her forced silence is codified.

 

But doesn't this suggest that the solder does have an obligation to submit to rape if the child reaches a certain degree of helplessness?  If the Kurdish girl is a quadriplegic?  Or if she's a newborn, instead of five years old?

Yes, the woman will have to go to court if somebody decides to sue and another round of reliving the rape may insue - but that's not the baby's fault either.  That's for the courts and the lawyers to figure out the best way to protect the mother.

 

The FACT remains.  Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not granted by law and should not be taken out by law.  Once you decide when Life begins, exceptions cannot stand because the law cannot remove an innocent life's inalienable rights.

 

Let me see if I'm understanding you, by trying to re-phrase your position:

 

There should be an exception to a general ban on abortions, but the exception should not be based on the mere fact that the pregnancy was the result of rape.  Rather, an in-depth and case-specific analysis should be conducted of the harm that carrying the child to term would cause to the mother in this particular situation to determine if a valid basis for a self-defense claim exists; and permission for an abortion granted (or denied) accordingly.

 

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned... I made an effort to at least skim everything to avoid repetition, but you know how it is sometimes

 

There are a couple of really big practical problems with the idea of a rape exception...

• How do you define such an exception?  Would the rapist have to already have been convicted of the crime in order to enable the victim to obtain an abortion?  Criminal proceedings can very easily drag out for years - far beyond the 9 month gestational period for a human being.
• If an accusation is all it takes, then we could expect to see an upswing in accusations of rape, even if there was no such crime committed in most of these cases.  The accusation alone being enough to obtain the abortion, we would see mens' reputations ruined by those who are willing to take that approach to get out of pregnancy.

 

So while I do understand the desire to create an exception that might be more compassionate toward the victim of a rape, the simple fact is that it sounds a lot better than the reality would be, and would create a new crop of problems.

 

So it's either have rape victims unable to get an abortion (which may be necessary but tragic, given the perspective that the unborn child shouldn't be made to suffer for what their father did) or make abortions universally available to cover all of these cases (given the perspective that the emotional damage to the victim outweighs the moral problems associated with the abortion). 

 

Sure; in this type of case there are no easy solutions.  But I think the harm caused by an absolute no-abortion-for-rape-victims legal regimen, outweighs the burdens that would be imposed by taking a more balanced approach.

 

For me, I think the best balance you can get is to allow abortions for rape-resultant pregnancies, only after the woman has made a report with a "victim's advocates office" (these office already exist as an adjunct to the criminal court system in some states).  At minimum, the victim's advocate would connect the woman with additional counseling services, forward statistical data on to proper health authorities, keep its own data on the alleged perpetrator, and perhaps even let him know that an accusation has been made. 

 

This process would not result in automatic referral to law enforcement authorities -- the victim may choose not to prosecute; or she may choose to have her case file forwarded on to the police for further action.  At the same time, though, if Joe Schmoe finds himself at the center of an investigation for a rape that has been referred to law enforcement; then the victim advocate's records involving Joe Schmoe should be available via subpoena.  And I would suggest that if a woman finds herself in a victim advocate's office again, the counseling/rehabilitative services should be at progressively higher levels of intensity with civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance (similar to a drug court or mental health court model, where we use jail as a sanction for the client's own good).  And when recidivism reaches some level, then yeah--you just quit authorizing the abortion.

 

It's imperfect, to be sure; but I think it's vastly preferable to a complete prohibition on abortion.

[Guest]

Then again, Lehi put out a hypothetical about a rape accomplished, not by threat of force against the woman; but by threat of force against her family members; and no one called him on it.

 

I believe the post you linked to is not the one you intended.  If you could repost, I'll take a look.

 

And, the fact that you're convinced "that would never happen!!!" is kind of my point.  Men, by and large, don't have to imagine themselves in this sort of scenario; which I think does sometimes lead to a certain glibness in dictating the preferred response of women who do get into this sort of scenario.

 

1) You're ignoring the other two characteristics of this type of hypothetical.  And it wasn't that it was a hypothetical.  It was the characteristics that made it seem non sequitur.

 

2) I'm not trying to dictate anything.  I'm just trying to have enough discussion to try to understand.  And I don't.  The main reason is that I'm not getting any arguments that are about what is right and wrong.  They're about emotion and how horrible something is that I will never experience.  **I'll address that later.***  So, make logical arguments.  All I've heard are emotional ones which by your own words (as well as others) I will never understand.

 

Well, to clarify, I'm talking about legal obligations, not moral ones.

 

And, the decision-maker in either hypothetical, is not the one with their own neck on the line.  To be analogous to a rape-resultant pregnancy, the question you should be asking is whether (in the first hypothetical) the child should be under a legal obligation to pull the switch and cause his own death (and go to jail if he doesn't); or (in the second hypothetical) the fat guy should be under a legal obligation to throw himself onto the rail (and again, go to jail if he doesn't).

 

1) Your hypothetical was about moral obligations.  I also gave one about moral obligations to make a point.  And I think you just illustrated it.

 

2) For any bad situation, we can choose to interfere or we can choose to let things run their course.  One may hide behind Edmund Burke, or one may recognize that choosing to do "something" is often worse than "nothing".  And in a situation like this where any decision is a bad decision, we can't depend on mortal wisdom to truly see the way through.

 

3) The point in my hypothetical is if you were king for a day and made the decision, what would you believe is the right thing to do?  In the train analogy, you are the king that makes the decision.  Abortion is a moral decision that government needs to address.

 

*******************

 

** How horrible does something have to be for sin to be justified?  How about never?  Only Christ's atonement can justify sin.  Only Christ's atonement can sanctify us.

 

We consider Jean Valjean choosing between starvation or theft.  Does that mean that the theft is not a crime?  No, it is still a crime.  We're just more sympathetic and willing to forgive.  Hence the concept of clemency in a court of law.

 

Rules are not simply to guide us when things are easy.  They are MORE important in the midst of a trial.  How useful is our faith if our morals can be dismissed simply because things get too hard?  Or if our emotions are allowed to get the better of us?

 

They are to be decided when we are at peace but implemented when we are tried.  It is at peace we can truly understand the will of the Lord.  When we are crying out in despair, can we be expected to make a clear decision?  When our hearts and minds are burning with insanity?  No, only the preconceived notions that we developed when we were sane, can we depend on.

 

*******************

 

Just because I can't understand the pregnancy aspect of the topic, doesn't mean I can't understand other aspects of the topic.  And, yes, it tends to drive one insane.  But, no, it does not justify doing something otherwise considered evil.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Hmm.  The thing is, due to mental health issues or whatever, my attacker can be both an aggressor and morally/legally innocent.  I am not, in such a scenario, required to put down my gun--I have a legal and moral right to look out for number one.  All that's required is a reasonable fear that my own safety is in jeopardy; I don't have to analyze my attacker's moral processes.

 

Sure.

 

But, the baby is clearly not an aggressor.  You cannot be an aggressor simply by the fact that you exist. 

 

 

 

 

But doesn't this suggest that the solder does have an obligation to submit to rape if the child reaches a certain degree of helplessness?  If the Kurdish girl is a quadriplegic?  Or if she's a newborn, instead of five years old?

 

 

Negative.

 

The soldier has no obligation to submit to anything that is detrimental to his Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.  By the same token, the child - helpless or otherwise - has no obligation to submit to anything that is detrimental to his Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

 

This is the balance.  You cannot codify that a person HAS to submit to such - and that is what you're doing to the child if you codify an exception to abortion.

 

 

Let me see if I'm understanding you, by trying to re-phrase your position:

 

There should be an exception to a general ban on abortions, but the exception should not be based on the mere fact that the pregnancy was the result of rape.  Rather, an in-depth and case-specific analysis should be conducted of the harm that carrying the child to term would cause to the mother in this particular situation to determine if a valid basis for a self-defense claim exists; and permission for an abortion granted (or denied) accordingly.

 

 

Except for the word Exception... Nail on the Head.

 

It is not an Exception.  It is a Justifiable Action.  Make sense?

 

 

 

Sure; in this type of case there are no easy solutions.  But I think the harm caused by an absolute no-abortion-for-rape-victims legal regimen, outweighs the burdens that would be imposed by taking a more balanced approach.

 

For me, I think the best balance you can get is to allow abortions for rape-resultant pregnancies, only after the woman has made a report with a "victim's advocates office" (these office already exist as an adjunct to the criminal court system in some states).  At minimum, the victim's advocate would connect the woman with additional counseling services, forward statistical data on to proper health authorities, keep its own data on the alleged perpetrator, and perhaps even let him know that an accusation has been made. 

 

This process would not result in automatic referral to law enforcement authorities -- the victim may choose not to prosecute; or she may choose to have her case file forwarded on to the police for further action.  At the same time, though, if Joe Schmoe finds himself at the center of an investigation for a rape that has been referred to law enforcement; then the victim advocate's records involving Joe Schmoe should be available via subpoena.  And I would suggest that if a woman finds herself in a victim advocate's office again, the counseling/rehabilitative services should be at progressively higher levels of intensity with civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance (similar to a drug court or mental health court model, where we use jail as a sanction for the client's own good).  And when recidivism reaches some level, then yeah--you just quit authorizing the abortion.

 

It's imperfect, to be sure; but I think it's vastly preferable to a complete prohibition on abortion.

 

In my humble opinion, it is not merely imperfect.  It is wrong.

 

Inalienable Rights are Granted by God.  The Law cannot revoke it from an innocent.

 

And if I may go further and state that The Law cannot revoke it from the guilty either.  That is why I am against capital punishment unless the Judge/Jury are comprised of Bishops exercising their Priesthood Authority of Discernment.

[LeSellers]

Rules are not simply to guide us when things are easy.  They are MORE important in the midst of a trial.  How useful is our faith if our morals can be dismissed simply because things get too hard?  Or if our emotions are allowed to get the better of us?

Or, in terms of an old aphorism: Hard cases make bad law.

If we constantly kowtow to the corner cases, those that happen so rarely as to be a tiny fraction of the big picture, we end up with really, really bad law.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

If a woman is forced into raising a child with absolutely no agreement on her part on any step of the way, then As soon as she has the freedom to make the choice, to either be rid of the child or to care for it, and either would be just. (if the child was already born at his point there would also have to be none else willing to raise the child either). The death of the child would be upon the one(s) who forced it upon the woman.

I'm going to respond under the assumption that "be rid of the child" and "the death of the child" are connected, i.e., the one way, at least, of getting rod of the child would be to kill him and that is "solution" would be just.

Your caveat that this would be contingent on there being no one to care for him is noted, and given our family background (we have three adoptees among our grandchildren and, as you know, Carborendum is also an adoptee), I pledge that no child would be uncared for if anyone knows about the situation. There are waiting lists two miles long for children to be adopted. (The fact that government makes it difficult and expensive is a whole new issue.) The odds of such a situation actually existing is trivial to the vanishing point.

So, let's move on to the alternative: the justice of killing the child to be rid of him.

Huh!?!?

Infanticide is immoral, it is never just, and it is never a good response to a bad situation. One hopes I misread your statement.

Lehi

Edited January 9, 2016 by LeSellers

[JojoBag]

 

Not really shocked....just feeling worn down. 

 

Full story here

 

“I love providing abortion care to women, and I am proud to do so,” Payne wrote, adding that she and many of her colleagues are “not afraid, embarrassed or ashamed to say so.”

Payne explained:

 

Who wants to be an abortion provider?

 

I do. And I don’t have a nose-ring or a tattoo. I’m a 5’ blonde from Ohio and my last boyfriend was a pastor. In fact my Midwest, Christian upbringing is largely responsible for my belief that providing abortion services is one of the most meaningful ways I feel I can contribute to making the world a more fair and equal place for women.

 

 

President Benson talked about this kind of "Christian."  He called them "socialist Christians."  These are the type that believe that everyone will make it back to God.  There really isn't anything called "sin" and there really isn't a Devil.  It's nothing more than the evil passions of men that are the problem in the world.

[Blackmarch]

I'm going to respond under the assumption that "be rid of the child" and "the death of the child" are connected, i.e., the one way, at least, of getting rod of the child would be to kill him and that is "solution" would be just.

Your caveat that this would be contingent on there being no one to care for him is noted, and given our family background (we have three adoptees among our grandchildren and, as you know, Carborendum is also an adoptee), I pledge that no child would be uncared for if anyone knows about the situation. There are waiting lists two miles long for children to be adopted. (The fact that government makes it difficult and expensive is a whole new issue.) The odds of such a situation actually existing is trivial to the vanishing point.

So, let's move on to the alternative: the justice of killing the child to be rid of him.

Huh!?!?

Infanticide is immoral, it is never just, and it is never a good response to a bad situation. One hopes I misread your statement.

Lehi

it makes no difference to me whether the child is in the womb or outside of it to me, the principle applies to both. justice is not a pretty thing in this situation there is no fairytell ending, save for one thing; should the woman decide to be merciful towards those who sinned against her and the child, and choose to continue to bear the burden they have placed on her beyond when option to be rid of it is available (and for the born child if there is a third party willing to take it then that too is a very merciful and welcome outcome, but not every place in the world is that fortunate, too often abandonment is a death sentence). Yes it is generally very immoral and that why the party that forced such an event to come about should recieve all the consequences of causing such upon their heads (the woman would not be under condemnation). However in the case of two injustices, the woman is in line first to be balanced and remedied. If the woman had no say in having and or raising a child, forcing her to remain in that situation when she would choose otherwise would make those who would keep her that way as guilty as the first. the bottom line is if the mother had no choice in the process at every step along the way, she does not bear any responsibility whatsoever to/for the child. Now if she did have a choice, then its a different story.

This situation is very rare in more civilized nations of the world today, but not totally unheard of. And unfortunately perpetrators of such rarely get what they deserve for doing so.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Blackmarch

[LeSellers]

it makes no difference to me whether the child is in the womb or outside of it to me,

And therein lies the rub: when does it start being different?

For some of us, that "when" is very early in the gestation — a child is a child in the womb, and that childhoodness begins at or near conception. For others, this does not happen until the child has celebrated his fifth birthday.

I'm on your side. Killing her baby in utero is no less killing than killing him five years later. Whether it's murder depends solely on the danger to the mother: if she is in imminent danger of life or limb, it is self-defense; if not, it is something else: something sinister, something immoral.

Lehi

[askandanswer]

I don't feel the need to make up my mind about abortion unless my wife or daughters were in a position where they might be considering it. If that were to ever happen, then I would need to think very seriously about it. Until then, I'm more than happy to just accept the teachings of the church without thinking about it too much or questioning it. And if I ever was in the situation where I needed to think very seriously about it, then I believe that my conclusion would be to simply follow the teachings of the church. I also don't feel the need to work out the rationale for the church's position, or the rightness or wrongness, or the basis for its position. The fact that its a church position is good enough for me.

 

I'm quite prepared to let others form and hold, and act on their own opinions. If they are a rational, mature adult, Its not for me to try and change their minds. However, if someone, church member or not, came to me asking me for advice, I would pretty much just follow the church line. If you want to abort, go ahead and abort but be prepared to live with the consequences, both temporal and eternal. If you want to give birth, go ahead and give birth, but be prepared to live with the consequences, both temporal and eternal.