It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

My favorite take so far has been this one: 

https://www.newsweek.com/keith-olbermann-supreme-court-twitter-rant-reactions-1718631?amp=1

 

Because of course Olbermann felt the same way when gay marriage was legalized. 

It's like he's auditioning for cnn or something. I didn't mind him when he covered sports. I thought some of his takes were very good actually.

However, he has always seemed sad to me. Like an incel of the left...alone and lost in his own little world. None of this stuff affects him, yet he (and many others on both sides) chooses to get so angry and worked up over nothing. Folks just need to learn how to turn the dial down a notch or two rather than having a temper tantrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, scottyg said:

It's like he's auditioning for cnn or something. I didn't mind him when he covered sports. I thought some of his takes were very good actually.

However, he has always seemed sad to me. Like an incel of the left...alone and lost in his own little world. None of this stuff affects him, yet he (and many others on both sides) chooses to get so angry and worked up over nothing. Folks just need to learn how to turn the dial down a notch or two rather than having a temper tantrum.

All true. He reminds me of, amazingly, of Laura Ingraham from Fox News. I might be spelling her name wrong, but I don’t care. She struck me as a crabby nag who radiates a sense of sadness. Just like Keith does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LDSGator said:

All true. He reminds me of, amazingly, of Laura Ingraham from Fox News. I might be spelling her name wrong, but I don’t care. She struck me as a crabby nag who radiates a sense of sadness. Just like Keith does. 

Unfortunately, people always seem to look for happiness and meaning in their lives in all the wrong places. Then, rather than change course, they pursue their incorrect path in hopes that they can force the right to appear. Some do it out of pride, others spite. Kind of like Darth Vader actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, scottyg said:

Unfortunately, people always seem to look for happiness and meaning in their lives in all the wrong places.

I agree in part, disagree in part. People DO look for things that provide them with temporary pleasure and mistake it for happiness.
 

But, on the flip side, I’ve met a ton of people who simply can’t grasp the concept that other people can find happiness in hobbies that aren’t similar to their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing lots of active members of the church show their support for the pro-choice movement. 

I've always felt like pro-choice was incompatible with the views of the church.  Am I wrong here? God is pro-choice in the sense that he gives everyone the freedom to choose. But, if you took a covenant to represent Christ, I expect your support to align with Christ, and not the world. Yes, I realize that other people have their agency. But, what about the agency of the unborn that is being completely ignored?

Am I missing something? Obviously we allow for the rare exceptions such as the life of the mother being threatened, rape, and incest. But, what about all of those elective abortions? How can a pro-life stance be consistent with the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Bednar believes agency is the least understood gospel principle. Do you think his comments would indicate that it's our responsibility not to justify the sins of others? I'm sure he's mostly speaking of our individual actions, but he also mentioned our agency being enlarged, which I take it as impacting more than just self. 

 

FWJ2LycVUAAHEnD?format=jpg&name=medium

FWJ2LybUUAA--Ch?format=jpg&name=large

FWJ2LybUsAE1p2f?format=jpg&name=large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

I'm seeing lots of active members of the church show their support for the pro-choice movement. 

I've always felt like pro-choice was incompatible with the views of the church.  Am I wrong here? God is pro-choice in the sense that he gives everyone the freedom to choose. But, if you took a covenant to represent Christ, I expect your support to align with Christ, and not the world. Yes, I realize that other people have their agency. But, what about the agency of the unborn that is being completely ignored?

Am I missing something? Obviously we allow for the rare exceptions such as the life of the mother being threatened, rape, and incest. But, what about all of those elective abortions? How can a pro-life stance be consistent with the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

You aren’t missing a thing.  We are cautioned even in those “rare things”

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

I've always felt like pro-choice was incompatible with the views of the church. 

Am I missing something? 

For the most part, no, you're not missing anything.   But there are a few historical aspects that you are probably missing.

WHAT LIBERALS ARE MISSING:

When abortion became a debatable topic (i.e. enough people on both sides of the aisle that there was reasonable cause to have public debates about it) the meaning of pro-choice/pro-abortion was to allow for those few exceptions.  Prior to that, abortion was almost never legal.

Over time, public sentiment changed such that most conservatives are the ones saying that it should be legal in those special circumstances.  At the same time and liberals were asking for taxpayer funded abortions upto and including partial-birth abortion.

People didn't take notice of the change in the conditions/definitions.  They merely carried on with the party they were raised in.

WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MISSING:

The Church's position on abortion and the meaning of abortion is not what most believe it is.  They don't realize that (by the description above) the Church was quite liberal in the 60s and 70s since its official position was "Pro-Choice".  But to paraphrase Reagan (my position didn't change, the pro-choice movement changed).

Per President McKay, we don't know when the spirit enters the body.  No prophetic word has defined that.  So, theologically, we don't know when the embryo/fetus is "alive" (as defined by when the spirit enters the body).  We do know by John the Baptist that it happens long before birth.  But that is all we know.  So, we don't know if it is "murder".  He also noted that since we have no prophetic word that it is "listed" as one of the unforgivable sins, then it "probably" is forgivable.  Again, a lot of unknowns here.

So, are we "killing" a physical body that may or may not have a spirit?  We don't have much in the way of prophetic guidance.  The word we have been given is that it is still destroying a temple of God and (at the very least) destroying a "potential" life.

What we do know is that the Church has supported those few exceptions.  And that whether murder or not, (again Per Pres. McKay) it is still considered one of the most grievous sins of this generation.

Under what conditions would we justifiably "destroy a temple of God"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

For the most part, no, you're not missing anything.   But there are a few historical aspects that you are probably missing.

WHAT LIBERALS ARE MISSING:

When abortion became a debatable topic (i.e. enough people on both sides of the aisle that there was reasonable cause to have public debates about it) the meaning of pro-choice/pro-abortion was to allow for those few exceptions.  Prior to that, abortion was almost never legal.

Over time, public sentiment changed such that most conservatives are the ones saying that it should be legal in those special circumstances.  At the same time and liberals were asking for taxpayer funded abortions upto and including partial-birth abortion.

People didn't take notice of the change in the conditions/definitions.  They merely carried on with the party they were raised in.

WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MISSING:

The Church's position on abortion and the meaning of abortion is not what most believe it is.  They don't realize that (by the description above) the Church was quite liberal in the 60s and 70s since its official position was "Pro-Choice".  But to paraphrase Reagan (my position didn't change, the pro-choice movement changed).

Per President McKay, we don't know when the spirit enters the body.  No prophetic word has defined that.  So, theologically, we don't know when the embryo/fetus is "alive" (as defined by when the spirit enters the body).  We do know by John the Baptist that it happens long before birth.  But that is all we know.  So, we don't know if it is "murder".  He also noted that since we have no prophetic word that it is "listed" as one of the unforgivable sins, then it "probably" is forgivable.  Again, a lot of unknowns here.

So, are we "killing" a physical body that may or may not have a spirit?  We don't have much in the way of prophetic guidance.  The word we have been given is that it is still destroying a temple of God and (at the very least) destroying a "potential" life.

What we do know is that the Church has supported those few exceptions.  And that whether murder or not, (again Per Pres. McKay) it is still considered one of the most grievous sins of this generation.

Under what conditions would we justifiably "destroy a temple of God"?

How is the church's official position pro-choice? Pro-choice, at least in my interpretation, means you're okay with someone aborting an unplanned pregnancy. There are no qualifiers. It's simply your choice. The position of the church that you're touching on is the exception, not the rule. The official declaration from the church states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." That is the rule, not the exception.

If we're pro-choice on abortion, are we also pro-choice when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Nephi, the Israelites, and a few others were instructed to kill their enemies. But, as we know, that obviously isn't the rule - that is the exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

How is the church's official position pro-choice? Pro-choice, at least in my interpretation, means you're okay with someone aborting an unplanned pregnancy. There are no qualifiers. It's simply your choice. The position of the church that you're touching on is the exception, not the rule. The official declaration from the church states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." That is the rule, not the exception.

If we're pro-choice on abortion, are we also pro-choice when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Nephi, the Israelites, and a few others were instructed to kill their enemies. But, as we know, that obviously isn't the rule - that is the exception. 

That’s all true, but in modern times using the terms “pro choice” and “pro life” are the easiest ways to determine someones views on the abortion issue. Of course it’s vastly more complex than that-but those terms suit the argument just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

How is the church's official position pro-choice? Pro-choice, at least in my interpretation, means you're okay with someone aborting an unplanned pregnancy. There are no qualifiers. It's simply your choice. The position of the church that you're touching on is the exception, not the rule. The official declaration from the church states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." That is the rule, not the exception.

If we're pro-choice on abortion, are we also pro-choice when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Nephi, the Israelites, and a few others were instructed to kill their enemies. But, as we know, that obviously isn't the rule - that is the exception. 

I think the point Carbs is making is that, unlike pro-lifers, we don’t take an absolute position that life begins at conception or that *all* abortion is tantamount to killing.  We feel it’s “close enough” that we generally support restriction/prohibition of elective abortion, but we don’t camp out at abortion clinics shrieking “murderer!” And dumping blood on people.

The subset of LDS who openly advocate elective abortion, I think, aren’t necessarily missing any deep theology that specifically addresses precisely when life begins.  What they are missing, I think, is a broader understanding of chastity and the meaning of life and how to find personal fulfillment.  The pro-elective-abortion movement, at its core, assumes that a) consequence-free indulgence of human appetites are so essential to the human condition that at least some of them—especially sex—ought to be regarded as a human right; and b) that the denial of this “right” fundamentally makes life not worth living.  

There’s a whole constellation of social issues and life problems that ultimately arise from the interplay of these two assumptions—abortion, LGBTQ issues, sexual violence, divorce, fatherlessness (and, via fatherlessness, crime and poverty generally), the “crisis of connection”, mental health, obesity, suicide . . . The Church is not immune from these trends; and it becomes further entangled in them to the extent that its youth become caught up in the broader secular disregard for the principles of chastity and self-sacrifice and healthy human relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

How is the church's official position pro-choice?

@Just_A_Guy's explanation was pretty good.

Beyond that, I'm perplexed by your response.

It appears as if you completely missed my entire post except for one phrase which you directly asked about.   And you're absolutely right about what you posted.  But you asked what you were missing.  I answered that question. 

Then you proceeded to repeat what you knew and skipped over all the stuff that you were missing.  So, if you don't want to hear what you're missing, I'm left wondering why exactly did you ask the question in the first place?

Let me summarize to excuse you from having to read the entire post (although you may find it informative):

1973:

Pro-choice = allow abortions in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. THIS WAS the Church's position in 1973.
Pro-life = outlaw all abortions except in the most extreme danger to the life of the mother.

2022:

Pro-choice = allow/encourage ANY AND ALL abortions upto a second before the baby takes its first breath.  No exceptions.
Pro-life = Allow in cases of rape/incest/threat to life of the mother.  And/or severely limit to very early stage pregnancies. This is close to the Church's position today

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 6:25 PM, LDSGator said:

Sure. Most Trumpers are STILL trying to defend the God/Lord/Emperor Trump and pretend that Jan 6th panel is a conspiracy out to get their man. Instead of blaming Trump, they blame the “disloyal” Pence, Barr, etc for not waving a magic wand and putting Trump back in office. It’s creepy. The Obamabots scared me with their cult like devotion to Obama. They still do. The Trumpers really scare me. 

I agree and what is coming out from the Jan 6th committee is astonishing but for Trump and some of his radicalized followers, it is all "fake" news and what took place in Jan 6th isn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I don’t recognize any of these names (that’s not saying much). Are any of these people influential?

No. This is a sampling of the buzz on random Twitter accounts. People don’t usually openly holler for murder like this, so it is not usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Suzie said:

I agree and what is coming out from the Jan 6th committee is astonishing but for Trump and some of his radicalized followers, it is all "fake" news and what took place in Jan 6th isn't a big deal.

I really have no idea how much of what we're seeing is true or false.  But I tend to look at the bigger picture of the so-called trial.

All witnesses and inquiries are one-sided.  No effort is being made to:

  • Call opposing witnesses.
  • Allow for cross-examination of the witnesses.
  • Defend / listen to those languishing in solitary confinement for nearly a year and a half.

Even if 100% of what you're hearing so far is true, do you honestly believe that you're getting the whole picture with such a kangaroo court? (I mean that by its technical definition, not the connotative meaning).

If you haven't even noticed any gaping holes in the witnesses' testimonies that would have been brought up during cross-ex, then you are oblivious to your own bias.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Suzie said:

I agree and what is coming out from the Jan 6th committee is astonishing but for Trump and some of his radicalized followers, it is all "fake" news and what took place in Jan 6th isn't a big deal.

I respect the work they’re doing in getting witness accounts “on the record”, but I have no illusions that this is either balanced or non-partisan.  Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was disturbing, but I want to know how on earth someone in the back of a limo can get anywhere near the steering wheel.  For her to repeat that uncritically, and for no one to have pushed back on it during the hearing itself, raises red flags for me about this incident and about her credibility generally.

The truth, if ever we get it, will come via the judicial process.  In the interim I continue to believe that on J6 Trump was incredibly stupid—impeachably so, IMHO—but not deliberately fomenting sedition.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

You forgot to mention that hearsay evidence is allowed.

Actually, that was one of the "holes" I was thinking about.

Hearsay evidence is actually allowed in many jurisdictions provided that it is a person's first hand account of what they actually heard someone say.  But in this case, we hear people saying second and third hand accounts.  What's worse is that the individuals in the first-hand position went on record saying that the second hand account was inaccurate.  But those individuals are not being allowed to testify.

EDIT: I see you posted to that link.

Again, they only allow one sided testimony.  One of the classic characteristics of a kangaroo court.  But the left simply doesn't see it.  It is their MO.  

The right always welcomes more discussion, more speech.  In the end the right will be vindicated by more speech than less speech.  And if more speech is really allowed and the right is found to be wrong, so be it.  We're wrong.

But the left's go-to tactic is to shut down any narrative counter to their own positions.  And we see that in technicolor display at these hearings.

That is why I say, I don't really get invested in trying to figure out the truth from the evidence and testimony provided because it is specifically being presented in a way as to shut down conversation, not arrive at the truth.  When you use that tactic, you're almost always wrong.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I respect the work they’re doing in getting witness accounts “on the record”, but I have no illusions that this is either balanced or non-partisan.  Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was disturbing, but I want to know how on earth someone in the back of a limo can get anywhere near the steering wheel.  For her to repeat that uncritically, and for no one to have pushed back on it during the hearing itself, raises red flags for me about this incident and about her credibility generally.

The truth, if ever we get it, will come via the judicial process.  In the interim I continue to believe that on J6 Trump was incredibly stupid—impeachably so, IMHO—but not deliberately fomenting sedition.

I agree with most of your post. I was actually surprised that Hutchinson's testimony about the steering wheel incident wasn't challenged or questioned as it should (giving the magnitude of the situation). Having said that, it was hearsay so I don't think she could have said anything more than what she already shared. In my view, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Trump did it. The other statement about Trump knowing fully well that the mob was armed and STILL didn't think it was a problem because "they aren't here to hurt ME" is what I found the most disturbing.

I cannot dismiss his behavior as "stupid", I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Can smart people like Trump be stupid sometimes? Absolutely. But on January 6, no.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share