Anti-abortion bill in Alabama

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MoE, I agree that the task is easier with a universally-accepted morality.  But—we used to have that; and it has decayed due to the conscientious effort of a bunch of sexual profligates.  And frankly, if the United States of 2019 can’t even agree on “the person who consciously makes the mess is the one who should bear the primary consequences of cleaning up that mess”—maybe we shouldn’t be a single country anymore. 

Yeah, I failed to complete my thought there.

Of course codification is easier with widespread acceptance of a single moral code. That doesn't always mean the widespread morality is just. I mean, one of the express reasons we have courts is to overturn laws that disadvantage/disempower a minority who don't share the same morals of a majority who imposed it on them anyway. Another way of phrasing that is that courts exist to adjudicate situations where the rights and/or interests of two parties conflict with each other. Which is effectively what Roe v Wade did, and I wish was made more explicit.

And I'm also not discounting the process of social evolution.  RBG has made comments in the past the Roe v. Wade was a bit of too-much, too-fast; and that if left alone, legislative processes probably would have wound up with a similar decision. But alas, here we are.

[The Folk Prophet]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From a theological standpoint—yes, as Saints we know that life begins when the spirit enters, and that event probably isn’t contemporaneous with conception; and for “permanently non-viable” babies maybe it doesn’t happen at all.  Further, whether the fetuses at issue in the “hard cases” are alive or not, the Lord excuses their abortion in at least some cases due to the anguish being suffered by the mother.

None of this rings true to me.

What does ring true: Life is eternal and God has a larger, overreaching plan that allows for all sorts of things that aren't necessarily the "moral" mortal choice. Which is why the Lord allowed for slavery, etc. in the OT.

When push comes to shove, babies that die before the age of 8 are saved in the Celestial Kingdom, and from that "practical" point of view, every abortion is saving souls. But, of course, we know that moral choices are about OUR character as much as it is about those we interact with. So murdering babies is bad despite the above point. But it is perfectly reasonably that the Lord can understand that in any given instance, in the bigger picture, said soul will be saved and for whatever reason the right choice in said instance is abortion. That is why the church's language uses the plain term "may". It is discretionary per the Spirit.

Edited May 21, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But I would argue it is less about right vs. wrong and more about just vs. unjust.

In my mind those things are semantically equivalent.

30 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Neither is independent or free of the effects of the interests of the other.

That's the way law work. Every restriction is equivalent to loss of freedom. The question is always whether the loss of freedom is worth it.

32 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I merely recognize that morality here isn't steady enough to build a meaningful decision.

It's true. The moral views of the country are split in half. They used to be strongly to one side. And I see a future where it swings the other way...where the majority view things like abortion and homosexuality as good and wholesome and any restrictions surrounding such things as immoral. And I expect the laws will follow that swing. And then I expect God's going to throw down on society.

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That doesn't always mean the widespread morality is just.

According to...?

[MarginOfError]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

According to...?

Missouri Executive Order 44?

[Just_A_Guy]

36 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Yeah, I failed to complete my thought there.

Of course codification is easier with widespread acceptance of a single moral code. That doesn't always mean the widespread morality is just. I mean, one of the express reasons we have courts is to overturn laws that disadvantage/disempower a minority who don't share the same morals of a majority who imposed it on them anyway. Another way of phrasing that is that courts exist to adjudicate situations where the rights and/or interests of two parties conflict with each other. Which is effectively what Roe v Wade did, and I wish was made more explicit.

And I'm also not discounting the process of social evolution.  RBG has made comments in the past the Roe v. Wade was a bit of too-much, too-fast; and that if left alone, legislative processes probably would have wound up with a similar decision. But alas, here we are.

The two issues the come immediately to mind here, are:

1)  The above, sort of indulges in the fantasy that SCOTUS acts—or could act—in a moral vacuum.  When in fact, it was their own notion of “morality” that told them that a woman has a right to sex without the consequences burdens that nature has long associated with sex.

2)  If indeed defending the rights of disenfranchised minorities is a crucial role of SCOTUS (I’m still inclined to agree that it can be, but am intrigued by and still processing arguments that the entire notion of judicial review creates more problems than it solves)—SCOTUS failed miserably.  Restrictive abortion statutes themselves already protected one disempowered interest group (the unborn) against a more powerful and traditionally exploitable group (their mothers); just as individual free-state antebellum laws protected their black residents and visitors against southern slavers   Like Dred Scott before it, Roe sold out the weakest by re-interpreting the struggle as one between the moderately powerful (women/southern slaveholders) against the very powerful (men in legislature/numerically superior northern states) who, rather than standing up for the genuinely helpless (as they in fact were, in both cases) were slandered as cynically depriving the moderately powerful of their natural and undeniable human rights.  Both legal opinions deployed a line of reasoning that defined away the humanity of the truly helpless (unborn/blacks), in order to benefit the Court’s well-connected pet interest group and twist the tail of political adversaries the Court already disliked.

A supreme tribunal of robed elders, tasked with defending the weak against the strong, may work in Zion; but it falls flat in Babylon where the hireling Noachian priests are likely to be as black-hearted as the next man.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The two issues the come immediately to mind here, are:

1)  The above, sort of indulges in the fantasy that SCOTUS acts—or could act—in a moral vacuum.  When in fact, it was their own notion of “morality” that told them that a woman has a right to sex without the consequences burdens that nature has long associated with sex.

2)  If indeed defending the rights of disenfranchised minorities is a crucial role of SCOTUS (I’m still inclined to agree that it can be, but am intrigued by and still processing arguments that the entire notion of judicial review creates more problems than it solves)—SCOTUS failed miserably.  Restrictive abortion statutes themselves already protected one disempowered interest group (the unborn) against a more powerful and traditionally exploitable group (their mothers); just as individual free-state antebellum laws protected their black residents and visitors against southern slavers   Like Dred Scott before it, Roe sold out the weakest by re-interpreting the struggle as one between the moderately powerful (women/southern slaveholders) against the very powerful (men in legislature/numerically superior northern states) who, rather than standing up for the genuinely helpless, were described as cynically depriving the moderately powerful of their natural and undeniable human rights.  Both cases did this by defining away the humanity of the truly helpless (unborn/blacks).  

A supreme tribunal of robed elders, tasked with defending the weak against the strong, may work in Zion; but it falls flat in Babylon where the hireling Noachian priests are likely to be as black-hearted as the next man.  

Well dang, we've still arrived here

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

Well dang, we've still arrived here

I prefer to think of it as an “impasse”.

Like this:

https://giphy.com/gifs/lotr-gandalf-lord-of-the-rings-njYrp176NQsHS

 

 

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I prefer to think of it as an “impasse”.

Like this:

https://giphy.com/gifs/lotr-gandalf-lord-of-the-rings-njYrp176NQsHS

 

 

No.  Just no.  Under no terms do you get to be Gandalf.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

No.  Just no.  Under no terms do you get to be Gandalf.

Oh, I wouldn’t want to be him, given that Ian McKellin is . . . well . . . 

Suffice it to say, I love my wife.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, I wouldn’t want to be him, given that Ian McKellin is . . . Well . . . 

old? 

You sick little ageist.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

None of this rings true to me.

What does ring true: Life is eternal and God has a larger, overreaching plan that allows for all sorts of things that aren't necessarily the "moral" mortal choice. Which is why the Lord allowed for slavery, etc. in the OT.

When push comes to shove, babies that die before the age of 8 are saved in the Celestial Kingdom, and from that "practical" point of view, every abortion is saving souls. But, of course, we know that moral choices are about OUR character as much as it is about those we interact with. So murdering babies is bad despite the above point. But it is perfectly reasonably that the Lord can understand that in any given instance, in the bigger picture, said soul will be saved and for whatever reason the right choice in said instance is abortion. That is why the church's language uses the plain term "may". It is discretionary per the Spirit.

Not quite sure to what degree you’re disagreeing with me specifically.  I think in principle we’re on the same page—abortion, at least once the spirit enters the body, is a terrible thing (and before the spirit enters, at best the act is still extremely reckless); but sometimes the Lord allows/excuses it due to circumstance.  

Your list does evoke a tangential question for me:  I realize that it’s common to assume that dying before age 8 is an automatic ticket to exaltation; but I wonder—is a runaway horse being suddenly contained by a heroic bystander, or a rotting roof joist holding out for just a few seconds longer before its collapse, sometime around A.D. 10–could that really be all the difference between Judas Iscariot as the archetypal Son of Perdition, versus Judas Iscariot as a peer of and co-heir with Abraham and Adam?

Edited May 21, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Midwest LDS]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Your list does evoke a tangential question for me:  I realize that it’s common to assume that dying before age 8 is an automatic ticket to exaltation; but I wonder—is a runaway horse being suddenly contained by a heroic bystander, or a rotting roof joist holding out for just a few seconds longer before its collapse, sometime around A.D. 10–could that really be all the difference between Judas Iscariot as the archetypal Son of Perdition, versus Judas Iscariot as a peer of and co-heir with Abraham and Adam?

I have to admit, this is an interesting question. On the surface it doesn't seem fair. The scriptures are clear that those who die before the age of accountability are exalted. Since God also knows the end from the beginning, wouldn't it be more just to end the lives of his children like Judas, who by living a full life lose their exaltation? I don't claim to know the answer, although my gut tells me it has something to do with agency, and my guess is we will never 100% understand until we have passed through the veil. 

But, I am sure that once we reach the other side, both the justice and mercy of God will make perfect sense in a way we cannot fully comprehend in mortality.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not quite sure to what degree you’re disagreeing with me specifically.  I think in principle we’re on the same page—abortion, at least once the spirit enters the body, is a terrible thing (and before the spirit enters, at best the act is still extremely reckless); but sometimes the Lord allows/excuses it due to circumstance.  

"yes, as Saints we know that life begins when the spirit enters"

Yes.

"and that event probably isn’t contemporaneous with conception;"

We don't know this.

"and for “permanently non-viable” babies maybe it doesn’t happen at all."

this has never been my assumption

"The Church’s position is based in [....] the Lord excuses their abortion in at least some cases due to the anguish being suffered by the mother."

This is where I think there needs to be clarity. I'm not sure there is disagreement. But I don't think the church's position implies the Lord excuses abortions or not. It simply implies that the church, as an organizational body on earth, won't take measures to censure or discipline those who pursue abortion under certain circumstances. As with all things, the church not acting does not mean the Lord approves or excuses.

Whereas I believe there are theoretical reasons where the Lord could...theoretically...excuse a person for killing another because they feel traumatized or don't want their bodies ruined, I tend to believe that, for the most part, murder is murder, and is never excused. That's not to say, of course, repentance is off the table. But boy howdy would I not want to have to face said repentance myself.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Your list does evoke a tangential question for me:  I realize that it’s common to assume that dying before age 8 is an automatic ticket to exaltation; but I wonder—is a runaway horse being suddenly contained by a heroic bystander, or a rotting roof joist holding out for just a few seconds longer before its collapse, sometime around A.D. 10–could that really be all the difference between Judas Iscariot as the archetypal Son of Perdition, versus Judas Iscariot as a peer of and co-heir with Abraham and Adam?

This sort of understanding is something that hasn't been revealed to us, I believe. But my understanding is that those who die before the age of 8 have proven themselves in the pre-mortal life so as to qualify for standing as peers and co-heirs with Abraham and Adam.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

On the surface it doesn't seem fair.

It's more than just children dying in this regard that doesn't. Any one who lives any longer than anyone else has theoretical advantage/disadvantage. The man who live to 18, under his parent's roof, never being exposed to evil, and therefore never having the same temptations, has advantage over the 30 year old who, after the same childhood, joined the military and was thereupon exposed to [insert temptations]...whereupon he dies in his sins, but another lives past that to gain a family of his own, repenting of those wild oat moments, and becomes a good man.

Not to mention some being born into good families, some into bad, etc.

It all seems unfair.

But we know it will not be.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 5/21/2019 at 11:04 AM, MarginOfError said:

Well dang, we've still arrived here

That awkward moment when you find the perfect meme . . . A week too late: 

https://images.app.goo.gl/s5Jr2uwisPmj49H47 

[mordorbund]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

 Utah just passed a post-20-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother; and the ACLU sued.

How does this work in the legal system? Does the mother have n days (say, 30 or 60) to file charges from the time of the alleged rape? Does the court system then have x days (again, say 30 or 60) to try the case? And then is there a cap on appeals? All so that the abortion can still happen if there's a conviction (3-6 months after the rape)?

What if there isn't a conviction? The courts are philosophically stacked in favor of the defendant, so a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean he's not guilty. Given that some rapists will walk free, how does the law determine when the circumstances are "rapey enough" to warrant an abortion and when it isn't?

[mordorbund]

dup

Edited May 27, 2019 by mordorbund

[mordorbund]

Some people just don't know when to shut up.

Edited May 27, 2019 by mordorbund
dup

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

How does this work in the legal system? Does the mother have n days (say, 30 or 60) to file charges from the time of the alleged rape? Does the court system then have x days (again, say 30 or 60) to try the case? And then is there a cap on appeals? All so that the abortion can still happen if there's a conviction (3-6 months after the rape)?

What if there isn't a conviction? The courts are philosophically stacked in favor of the defendant, so a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean he's not guilty. Given that some rapists will walk free, how does the law determine when the circumstances are "rapey enough" to warrant an abortion and when it isn't?

The doctor just has to verify, before performing the abortion, that the mother made a police report and, if applicable, that DCFS was notified.  

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0136.html

[mordorbund]

On 5/27/2019 at 11:59 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

The doctor just has to verify, before performing the abortion, that the mother made a police report and, if applicable, that DCFS was notified.  

https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0136.html

I'm still not sold on the rape/incest legal exception, but I appreciate the link to the bill.

I'm interested to see if the incidence of reported rapes will increase in areas serviced by some clinics but not others.

[Guest MormonGator]

I find it hilariously funny that only liberals boycott states that pass laws they don't agree with. Oddly, I don't remember any conservatives threatening to boycott Massachusetts when they legalized gay marriage. Or New York when they passed that abortion law. Or Vermont when they passed that abortion law. 

 

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I find it hilariously funny that only liberals boycott states that pass laws they don't agree with.

If banning abortion negatively affects tourism, you might be attracting the wrong crowd.......

[Guest Mores]

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I find it hilariously funny that only liberals boycott states that pass laws they don't agree with. Oddly, I don't remember any conservatives threatening to boycott Massachusetts when they legalized gay marriage. Or New York when they passed that abortion law. Or Vermont when they passed that abortion law. 

I wonder if they actually do.  Sure, they threaten.  But when Hollywood wants to make a movie, they'll do it wherever it is most cost effective while giving them the setting they want for the production.  Boycotts be Poo-pooed.

Just like Texas was inundated by liberal, greenie, Californians who couldn't find a job in their state.  Ya wanna know just how many of them complain about the oil industry that provides their paychecks?

Edited May 29, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Scott]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I find it hilariously funny that only liberals boycott states that pass laws they don't agree with. 
 

That's definitely not true:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2013/03/27/hunters-seek-to-boycott-colorado-over-gun-laws/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/conservatives-boycott-brands-keurig-nfl-starbucks-2017-11

Here's a list if anyone needs help on deciding what to boycott ;):

http://www.boycottleftwingers.com/

Anyway, the Colorado boycott was a big deal where I lived (Craig Colorado).   Craig Colorado dubs itself as the "Elk Hunting Capital of the World".  The region lost a lot of money in the boycott.

While not all hunters are conservatives, it was definitely conservatives who led the boycott.

While the boycott was made in order to make a statement, in many ways it backfired.  While by population, a majority of Colorado leans liberal, the areas where the hunting occurs are overwhelmingly conservative.  It was really only the conservative parts of Colorado that were harmed by the boycott.  The liberal parts of Colorado really weren't affected.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Scott