Sign in to follow this  
mikbone

Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!

Recommended Posts

On 9/4/2021 at 11:12 AM, Vort said:

I might find such "revelations" more convincing if those who reported them were no so often the same people who clamor for the Church's leaders to receive "revelation" that their pet perversion, e.g. homosexual "marriage", is approved of God, making prayer for divine revelation more or less like ordering your favorite hamburger from McDonald's. It is telling that such people seem never to receive revelation from God to avoid abortion, eschew homosexuality, or anything else that goes against their wants. All of their so-called revelations are easy and convenient (for them).

I don't know if there is anything I can say to help bridge this gap. The one thing I began to wonder here is how much of this is because the orthodox/conservative circles are just not tackling the gray areas of this issue. It seems that most if not all conservative voices are saying things like @The Folk Prophet is saying, that the "exceptions" (that have long been a part of the Church's official position) never really apply or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position. It seems to me that the best way to take the sting out of the weaponization of these kinds of stories would be for the orthodox/conservative community to actually take up the discussion (like @Just_A_Guy has done so well here) and really talk about abortion and the exceptions and do more to explore the moral gray areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if there is anything I can say to help bridge this gap. The one thing I began to wonder here is how much of this is because the orthodox/conservative circles are just not tackling the gray areas of this issue. It seems that most if not all conservative voices are saying things like @The Folk Prophet is saying, that the "exceptions" (that have long been a part of the Church's official position) never really apply or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position. It seems to me that the best way to take the sting out of the weaponization of these kinds of stories would be for the orthodox/conservative community to actually take up the discussion (like @Just_A_Guy has done so well here) and really talk about abortion and the exceptions and do more to explore the moral gray areas.

I just don't believe there are exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if there is anything I can say to help bridge this gap. The one thing I began to wonder here is how much of this is because the orthodox/conservative circles are just not tackling the gray areas of this issue. It seems that most if not all conservative voices are saying things like @The Folk Prophet is saying, that the "exceptions" (that have long been a part of the Church's official position) never really apply or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position. It seems to me that the best way to take the sting out of the weaponization of these kinds of stories would be for the orthodox/conservative community to actually take up the discussion (like @Just_A_Guy has done so well here) and really talk about abortion and the exceptions and do more to explore the moral gray areas.

It’s a loaded, deeply emotional issue. In fact, it’s probably the most polarizing issue out there. You’ll seldom meet someone who doesn’t feel a strong way about the topic. Your attempt to bridge the gap, while noble, will do nothing. Simply because that gap doesn't exist. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@The Folk Prophet is saying, that the "exceptions" (that have long been a part of the Church's official position) never really apply

Just to be clear -- the exception that the Spirit legitimately reveals to someone always applies.

I'm actually less stringent on things than I'm coming across I think. I think casual selfish abortion is an abomination. But I also understand that everyone will stand before God accountable for what they have done with their agency, and that abortion choices will play into that in a perfectly fair and just way.

The church's official position is not a legal theory. I separate the two things in my mind.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position.

Personally, I don't think the Church stating that there are possible exceptions for abortions (and they made sure to add that even in those rare exceptions it doesn't justify abortion automatically) equals to God inspiring someone to get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grunt said:

I just don't believe there are exceptions.

The Church seems to disagree, but, at least in the conservative/orthodox circles, the exceptions are barely mentioned. They are never discussed with any seriousness, which, I sometimes think, leads to some who believe that the exceptions don't really exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Suzie said:

or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position.

Personally, I don't think the Church stating that there are possible exceptions for abortions (and they made sure to add that even in those rare exceptions it doesn't justify abortion automatically) equals to God inspiring someone to get one.

I'm not certain I understand. Certainly, the existence of these exceptions does not automatically mean that God inspires all who find themselves in those scenarios to get abortions, but it does suggest to me that God might inspire some in those morally ambiguous circumstances to terminate their pregnancies. As @The Folk Prophet said, it isn't a clear cut legal thing. Navigating this moral gray area means balancing competing good and bad and risk and reward and seeking God's mind and seeking counsel from wise people and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think casual selfish abortion is an abomination.

I think you are right. And I expect that too many (probably even a majority) of abortions are "casual and selfish." I think where we run into trouble is when we talk as if all abortions are casual and selfish, while ignoring the existence of those where the woman must try her best to balance life and health or the trauma of rape or incest. I like that we can try to tackle the question, even if I don't expect we can come up with some kind of "checklist" or "formula" for deciding, but just trying to grapple with the moral gray area seems good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The Church seems to disagree, but, at least in the conservative/orthodox circles, the exceptions are barely mentioned. They are never discussed with any seriousness, which, I sometimes think, leads to some who believe that the exceptions don't really exist.

I think both observations are untrue: Exceptions are often mentioned (but not dwelt upon) in conservative circles, and when discussed are treated with great seriousness.

Why are such exceptions not discussed more among pro-life conservatives? Because they're exceptions. What do we have today? We have women killing their babies. Think about that for a minute. Why is that not the front-and-center topic in Every Single Abortion Discussion that ever takes place? Why on earth would anyone worry that maybe the conservatives just aren't talking about the relatively rare exceptions?

The problem is not and never has been close-minded, uptight conservatives. The problem is that many people seek to convince everyone that killing an unborn baby is a woman's God-given right. This is appalling to any decent human being, yet is the status quo in the world today. It has been the default position among leftists and media types (but I repeat myself) in the US since at least the late 1970s, a few years after the US Supreme Court permanently disgraced itself with the tortured non-reasoning of Roe v. Wade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, the existence of these exceptions does not automatically mean that God inspires all who find themselves in those scenarios to get abortions, but it does suggest to me that God might inspire some in those morally ambiguous circumstances to terminate their pregnancies.

Perhaps I'm overthinking the term "inspiring". I think the Lord might understand these exceptions/circumstances and bring comfort during a very difficult decision. But other than that, I just don't see the Lord inspiring someone to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The Church seems to disagree, but, at least in the conservative/orthodox circles, the exceptions are barely mentioned. They are never discussed with any seriousness, which, I sometimes think, leads to some who believe that the exceptions don't really exist.

That isn't exactly accurate.  The Church uses "may" and "doesn't automatically".   It opens the door to the possibility of exceptions, but doesn't outright grant them.

That said, I don't think they DO exist.   They are never discussed because A:  Many people agree with me that they don't exists, and B: because they are used as a distraction by pro-abortion folks.   

"I don't believe an innocent life should be taken."
"Oh, so you believe a woman should endure the emotional trauma of carrying a child conceived in incest and rape?   You hate women."

"OK, so if I grant exceptions to incest and rape, you'll support legislation that criminalizes all other abortions?"

"No, it's a woman's right to choose"

"Then why are we talking about incest and rape, not abortion in general?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2021 at 9:49 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But if we believe that life begins at conception, do we really want to create a regimen where abortion is the default option?  I've spilled a lot of virtual ink here in defending a rape victim's right to abort--but I would always hope she could find it within herself to deliver the baby.  

So I assume you believe that a baby is a baby right at conception, and that the plan B pill is abortion correct? A large amount of people do not believe that, and are just fine with the pill. Yet I rarely hear plan B brought up in the topic of rape by the pro-choice camp. The abortion defenders always bring up the need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet fail to acknowledge that taking a simple pill after the traumatic event will prevent the pregnancy.

I am trying to understand why, outside of just being evil, why they would rather have a more expensive procedure weeks/months later that terminates the life of an almost fully developed person, when the pregnancy could just be avoided in the first place for around $40. Walmart sells the darn pill for just $12.

I believe this is really all about money, politics, and influence/power. Also, the more the adversary can get people to care less about human life, the faster his plans take shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scottyg said:

believe this is really all about money, politics, and influence/power

It’s about sex too. Not being funny or rude, just stating a fact. So combine sex with money, politics and power, and you’ve got a “controversial” topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scottyg said:

So I assume you believe that a baby is a baby right at conception, and that the plan B pill is abortion correct? A large amount of people do not believe that, and are just fine with the pill. Yet I rarely hear plan B brought up in the topic of rape by the pro-choice camp. The abortion defenders always bring up the need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet fail to acknowledge that taking a simple pill after the traumatic event will prevent the pregnancy.

I am trying to understand why, outside of just being evil, why they would rather have a more expensive procedure weeks/months later that terminates the life of an almost fully developed person, when the pregnancy could just be avoided in the first place for around $40. Walmart sells the darn pill for just $12.

I believe this is really all about money, politics, and influence/power. Also, the more the adversary can get people to care less about human life, the faster his plans take shape.

I frankly don’t know if life begins at conception or not.  I rather suspect that it doesn’t, based on things my wife and other pregnant LDS women of my acquaintance have said about “quickening” and so on.

But I’m not so sure about that, that I’d counsel each and every rape victim to go out and take a Plan B.  Though I suppose, in general terms, that if an abortion is going to take place, it’s probably a little less inhumane to do it earlier rather than later. 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

It’s about sex too. Not being funny or rude, just stating a fact. So combine sex with money, politics and power, and you’ve got a “controversial” topic. 

Oh, yeah; that’s elephant in the room when we talk about elective abortion.  It always makes me giggle a little when feminists complain that abortion regulation is just men trying to get access to women’s bodies; and I have to bite my lip to avoid saying “Dearie, men already have access to your body.  That’s why you want the abortion.”

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, @The Folk Prophet, just wanted to let you know I’m not ignoring you; it’s just going to take me a good hour or so to collect my thoughts in response, and I haven’t had a solid hour to put into it yet and probably won’t for a few more days—family camping trip coming up . . . I’ll try to put something together when I get back, if the topic hasn’t gone stale by then.  Happy belated birthday, by the way!

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, yeah; that’s elephant in the room when we talk about elective abortion.  It always makes me giggle a little when feminists complain that abortion regulation is just men trying to get access to women’s bodies; and I have to bite my lip to avoid saying “Dearie, men already have access to your body.  That’s why you want the abortion.”

Oh. And all this time I thought you were a founding member of NARAL. My bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2021 at 1:37 AM, Vort said:

Why are such exceptions not discussed more among pro-life conservatives? Because they're exceptions.

And that is their prerogative, to not talk and explore the morality of the exceptions. But, if they choose not to engage in discussions of the exceptions, then it will always be the progressive and liberal voices that control that part of the dialog.

I'm reminded of once exploring the question of ectopic pregnancies and how to think about them. The LDS commentators I read decided that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion, so there are no moral considerations. Interestingly, I found some Catholic commentators with some interesting views. Since Catholics consider that life begins at conception, an ectopic pregnancy was clearly an abortion, but it was just as clear that medical necessity demands the termination of an ectopic pregnancy. These commentators then weighted in on the different treatment options for terminating the pregnancy and suggested that some are morally acceptable and others aren't. Whether or not I agreed with the conclusions, I was simply impressed that they had put forth the effort to think about the morality of abortion when it was medically necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2021 at 6:40 AM, Suzie said:

Perhaps I'm overthinking the term "inspiring". I think the Lord might understand these exceptions/circumstances and bring comfort during a very difficult decision. But other than that, I just don't see the Lord inspiring someone to do it.

Perhaps it is just trying to understand how we are using the term "inspiring" in this discussion. I have a hard time seeing God as only the "comforter" after the difficult decision is made. Perhaps I do not understand God's role in making a difficult decision like this, but I tend to think that God would help "inspire" a decision that He knows is best. I have a hard time seeing Him saying, "I don't care whether you choose to terminate or keep the pregnancy, but I'll be there for you whichever choice you make."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2021 at 5:04 PM, MrShorty said:

I don't know if there is anything I can say to help bridge this gap. The one thing I began to wonder here is how much of this is because the orthodox/conservative circles are just not tackling the gray areas of this issue. It seems that most if not all conservative voices are saying things like @The Folk Prophet is saying, that the "exceptions" (that have long been a part of the Church's official position) never really apply or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position. It seems to me that the best way to take the sting out of the weaponization of these kinds of stories would be for the orthodox/conservative community to actually take up the discussion (like @Just_A_Guy has done so well here) and really talk about abortion and the exceptions and do more to explore the moral gray areas.

Well, the forum liberal here (who actually is normally considered independant but leaning conservative among normal people who aren't on the far right fringes...if that says anything about the tone of the forums...)...

I take the stance that if abortion is murder, it does NOT MATTER WHAT THE situation is, it is STILL murder.  Murder has different classifications...but in the end, it is still...murder.  (and personally, despite being the forum liberal, this is more of the direction I lean...but this goes far beyond my personal feelings, and personally I'm not sure I should be enforcing personal beliefs on others in such a matter, but instead relegate to science and medical professionals for their opinions instead).

Is murder excused?  Is that what we are discussing?  Whether we can excuse a murder due to another crime being committed...where the murder is NOT the individual who committed the crime, but yet another victim of the crime?

Or are we discussing something else?

Perhaps it isn't murder at all, perhaps we are discussing a part of someone's body which, like any other part of someone's body, is a living thing within it.  In that case, the obvious question is should someone be able to remove a part of their body if they wish?  If someone wants to remove their eyeballs...should they be allowed to do so?

If they want to cut off their arms and legs just because they don't want them...should they be allowed to?

Well, in some ways we are getting closer to that.  In some transgender surgeries things like this occur, though we won't go into detail of WHAT is cut and what is not, or what is reconstructed.

Perhaps there is some medical reason.  We know that people get cancer and get parts of the body cut off or cut out.  This normally is for health reasons.  Who then determines what one can or cannot cut off our out of themselves?

I think the original idea of Roe vs. Wade was a responsible choice.  It LEFT that decision up to a Medical individual...normally a physician of some sort.  Hopefully the physician would know the most about a patient to be able to make the best choice from a physical, psychological, and mental viewpoint of how it would affect a patients health.

BUT, the more conservative side (yep, I know, forum liberal and all) of me says...we should have a  smaller federal government and smaller government in general.  Dictating and making laws about what people can or cannot do inherently increases the size of a government.  Perhaps it would be better to literally stay out of it...but is that the moral or ethical thing to do.

There are those people that would mutilate their bodies and themselves (and some do anyways) if given the chance and no doctor or medical personnel to stop them.  In that aspect, perhaps we've GONE TOO FAR.  Sometimes what we do with our bodies should NOT be our choice.  Sometimes it should not be...my body...my choice...especially when it pertains to taking something inside or part of our body and cutting it off or out.  Sometimes, medical personnel should be there.

Perhaps, the better way is to mind our own business and let medical professionals do their thing?

I think it is a HARD question to answer.  I think many just want it black and white and don't consider anything else (much less of whether something really is a conservative or liberal choice...afterall, making more laws historically in the US was a more liberal action than a conservative one).

Whatever it is, I don't think the Texas Law is the answer to it.  It opens to many things that could be used as a reference to open up more cans of worms...say being sued for owning a gun, or being sued for being being LDS, or any number of other scenarios that the general populace do not see coming.  I could see a complete blindside to conservatives due to this law in the next decade because they don't see that what can apply to one thing can be used as a precedent in another.

This law makes a dangerous precedent, and if I were a liberal lawyer in certain areas (say guns and religious liberty) I'd be analyzing it to see how far I could push it based on precedents in the next few years.

I don't think I'm the only one that sees it as a danger...not because of what the Law set out to do, but the unforeseen consequences of what it could be USED to do.  I think there are a LOT of people out there (and a LOT of them are conservatives) that see it as well.

I understand WHY the Supreme Court ruled as it did, but it doesn't make me any more comfortable with how the Texas Law was crafted or what it could be used to do in other areas beyond what it was originally planned.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mikbone It is kind of crazy that people want to ride the slippery slope all the way to the bottom. I don't know how to make the slope less sloped or less slippery. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the decision to terminate is pretty black and white, but there are many other cases where the choice is not as clear cut. What might the moral calculus look like when we consider these exceptions? What goes into the decision to terminate or keep the pregnancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

But, if they choose not to engage in discussions of the exceptions, then it will always be the progressive and liberal voices that control that part of the dialog.

The other reason that side controls the dialogue is because the pro life side is a mess. They spend too much of their time infighting about exceptions, birth control, tactics, other social issues....it’s basically a textbook on how to fail. 
 

Now, that said, things are changing for the pro life side. They’ve smartened up (only took them 40 years) and are now aligning with pro-life gays, pro life atheists, not arguing about other social issues, etc.So I think the pro life side is on the upswing, at least slightly

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@mikbone It is kind of crazy that people want to ride the slippery slope all the way to the bottom. I don't know how to make the slope less sloped or less slippery. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the decision to terminate is pretty black and white, but there are many other cases where the choice is not as clear cut. What might the moral calculus look like when we consider these exceptions? What goes into the decision to terminate or keep the pregnancy?

To each his own.  Everyone has to  navigate according to their conscious and promptings of the Holy Ghost.  

Ectopic pregnancies are identified because the mother has acute abdominal pain.  It’s obvious that something must be done…  We had 11 pregnancies and 11 live births.  

My wife just reminded me that our 16 year old son (just got his license) had 2 markers for down syndrome on his ultrasound.  We were offered an amniocentesis which we turned down.  

On our last 5 pregnancies, we entirely skipped all medical tests other than the pee stick.  And I solo assisted my wife deliver all of them in our home.  It is an amazingly simple medical procedure.  My baby toolkit consists of a tarp and bath-towels to keep things tidy and 2 cable zip ties as well as a Leatherman to cut the cord.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this