The sanctity of life.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

I think it's presumptuous to dismiss the argument out of hand

In the modern world, I think it's naive to assume that almost any argument is being presented both factually and truthfully.  Recent history proves that a significant percentage of everything we hear via media of any sort is a lie - perhaps all of it is.  I personally don't care whether doctors (claim they) are afraid.  I don't care if people are making wicked decisions and justifying them with "the changed abortion laws made me do it".  The Church's teachings about life are true.  The Church's policy on abortion is the most lenient any law should be.  That wicked people will cause unnecessary problems is irrelevant to what the laws should be and to which laws the saints should support or oppose.

Here's a page where folks have collected Church teachings relevant to abortion, for anyone interested.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

it's about the accuser being dumb and/or unconcerned with the depth of the situation.

I swear, I'm about to have to bust out with an "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"  

You are correct.  I should never underestimate the foolishness and stupidity of mankind.

[CommanderSouth]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

In the modern world, I think it's naive to assume that almost any argument is being presented both factually and truthfully.  Recent history proves that a significant percentage of everything we hear via media of any sort is a lie - perhaps all of it is.  I personally don't care whether doctors (claim they) are afraid.  I don't care if people are making wicked decisions and justifying them with "the changed abortion laws made me do it".  The Church's teachings about life are true.  The Church's policy on abortion is the most lenient any law should be.  That wicked people will cause unnecessary problems is irrelevant to what the laws should be and to which laws the saints should support or oppose.

Here's a page where folks have collected Church teachings relevant to abortion, for anyone interested.

I generally agree, but I think the fact that if you know something is going to be misused that should be taken into account.  While you say that wicked people causing unnecessary problems is irrelevant, I disagree whole heartedly.  If making the law stricter causes more harm to adult women vs viable fetuses, I think that should absolutely be taken into account.  God himself allows divorce even though the higher law forbids it apart from adultery.  He isn't holding us to that higher standard, yet.

Similarly, I think that the issue is multifaceted and the weaknesses of men should absolutely be accounted for.  It is true that it doesn't make it RIGHT, or moral, and truth will be truth, but in a fallen world, the fallen state should be taken into account.

[CommanderSouth]

59 minutes ago, mikbone said:

You are correct.  I should never underestimate the foolishness and stupidity of mankind.

Finally, something we can ALL agree on  

[CommanderSouth]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

In the modern world, I think it's naive to assume that almost any argument is being presented both factually and truthfully.

I think this is good advice, but I think it from the angle of, truth is often interpretation, and subject to perspective.  I think MANY times it isn't about "facts" (in -fact- I'm growing to dislike the word).

What one person sees as truth or a fact, another may see the opposite.  It doesn't mean either is right/wrong or that a thing didn't or did happen, just that perception is a huge part.  Someone was killed is the fact.  Manslaughter/Self Defense is very much interpretation.  This isn't to say everything is loosy goosy and up for grabs, just that, what one calls something, the other may call something else, and both may have valid evidence to justify the opinion.

So yes, when I read an article, I have to try to look at both sides, because usually it is slanted towards one or the other, and that isn't malicious, it's just life.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth

[zil2]

4 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

While you say that wicked people causing unnecessary problems is irrelevant, I disagree whole heartedly.

It is irrelevant to what the right laws are.  If wicked people doing wicked things were justification for wicked laws, then all of God's commandments would have to be tossed out the window.  Make the right laws / rules, and if the wicked then cause problems, deal with those as needed, but don't use those wicked acts to justify wicked laws.

6 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

If making the law stricter causes more harm to adult women vs viable fetuses, I think that should absolutely be taken into account.

"stricter" is also irrelevant.  The right laws are those which conform to God's will in this, and Church policy shows the maximum acceptable leniency.  Laws which go beyond that are wicked.  Laws which would forfeit the mother for the sake of the child, without any room for the people directly involved to make a decision are also wrong.  While there may be a minority pushing for such laws, I doubt many (if any) will be passed in this day and age - oh, sure, the "kill the babies" crowd want you to believe that certain states are on the verge of banning all abortion for everyone world wide and the sky is falling, too.  That's a scare tactic designed to convince everyone that the only reasonable choice is to pass laws that "protect abortion (for everyone, everywhere, all the time, no matter what)".

4 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I think this is good advice, but...

Let me put it another way - assume they're lying.  You're most likely right.  If it's being said in front of a camera, and it's got anything remotely to do with politics or law, it is almost certainly said to deceive.

And God gets to define truth, not the rest of us.

[zil2]

IMO, @CommanderSouth, it sounds like you're trying to find balance with Babylon.  That's a pointless endeavor.  Flee Babylon.

[CommanderSouth]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

IMO, @CommanderSouth, it sounds like you're trying to find balance with Babylon.  That's a pointless endeavor.  Flee Babylon.

And IMO it sounds like you're passing judgement where you ought not.  I want perfection, I believe in eternal truth, but we live in a fallen world where we walk by faith, I'm just working with the lesser evils, trying to do the least harm.  If that makes me wrong, then God help me. We live in a fallen world with people who don't believe the same as we do.  I don't know when human life begins, that isn't revealed to us.  Potential life begins at conception, but when the soul is there, we don't know.  

That being the case, ending a pregnancy may not even BE ending a human life, and the law allowing it doesn't make it right.  I'm not saying it's RIGHT, I'm just saying it being legal can cause less harm and suffering.  This isn't to say I vote abdicating responsibility either.  But making laws for a plurally religious country isn't so easy...

*sigh*

We want the same thing I'm sure, I'm leaving it at that.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth

[CommanderSouth]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

And God gets to define truth, not the rest of us.

Debatable.  Not that eternal truth isn't true eternally.  I would posit that truth exists apart from God, otherwise it isn't objectively true it would then be subjective to God.  But that's a whole other can of worms.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth

[CommanderSouth]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

Let me put it another way - assume they're lying.  You're most likely right.  If it's being said in front of a camera, and it's got anything remotely to do with politics or law, it is almost certainly said to deceive.

I know what I'm about to say is semantics...
I won't live that way.  I don't believe most people are lying.  Lying is a malicious falsehood.
Do I take what they're saying with a grain of salt because I'm sure they're trying to be persuasive?  Yes.  Obviously.  Do I assume they know better, don't care, and say a thing anyway?  No, I don't.  I believe most people generally believe what they're saying, even if I think they're leaning heavy into persuasion.

Furthermore, by that logic, you can say every missionary who doesn't open with multiple accounts of the first vision is a liar, they aren't giving the whole "truth" if they don't do that, right?  If they don't bring up blood atonement, or Adam God, are they deceiving?

Persuasion is not falsehood.  It isn't lying.  You need to be aware of bias, but that doesn't mean they're lying.  Lying requires you to believe one thing and say another, and I don't believe that is happening in MOST, if not all discussions.

Realistically I'm still probably hot under the collar from being told I'm trying to "find balance with Babylon".  So know that this is grumbly, sure, but not really mean spirited.

Edited November 5, 2024 by CommanderSouth

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I don't believe most people are lying.  Lying is a malicious falsehood.

Yup.

The majority of people that are toting Satan’s plan don’t realize that they are doing wrong.  They usually don’t really look into the propaganda that they are repeating with glee.  Although Satan’s propaganda is a lie, the people that repeat the propaganda don’t understand the consequences of the disinformation.

See Korihor.

Get woke.

Edited November 5, 2024 by mikbone

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I know what I'm about to say is semantics...
I won't live that way.  I don't believe most people are lying.  Lying is a malicious falsehood.
Do I take what they're saying with a grain of salt because I'm sure they're trying to be persuasive?  Yes.  Obviously.  Do I assume they know better, don't care, and say a thing anyway?  No, I don't.  I believe most people generally believe what they're saying, even if I think they're leaning heavy into persuasion.

Furthermore, by that logic, you can say every missionary who doesn't open with multiple accounts of the first vision is a liar, they aren't giving the whole "truth" if they don't do that, right?  If they don't bring up blood atonement, or Adam God, are they deceiving?

Persuasion is not falsehood.  It isn't lying.  You need to be aware of bias, but that doesn't mean they're lying.  Lying requires you to believe one thing and say another, and I don't believe that is happening in MOST, if not all discussions.

Realistically I'm still probably hot under the collar from being told I'm trying to "find balance with Babylon".  So know that this is grumbly, sure, but not really mean spirited.

I was about to put together my personal opinions about abortions and the sanctity of life.  I am working through how to present my thoughts.  But then I read this post.  It reminds me of a character on a TV sitcom called George Costanza where he said, “It is not a lie if you believe it’s true”.

There are two kinds of characters here as mortals on earth.  In scripture that are labeled as the covenant saints of G-d and the natural man.  Isaiah gives us a little more detail in explaining how men draw away from G-d.  They do so by “transgressing the Law, changing the Ordinances and breaking the Covenants.”  The two other terms in scripture that describe the two kinds of characters are the righteous and the wicked.  By default, we all are wicked which are heavily influenced by Satan.  To become righteous, we must become disciples of Christ. 

The word disciple has the same root meaning as discipline.  In order to shake off the natural wickedness within us all we must become disciplined through the ordinances and covenants given by Christ.  Through these ordinances and covenants we become “born again” new creatures that abhor evil (which includes the evil lies).  There is an essence of the divine within us all – even Satan.  With this divine essence we are given agency to bear darkness (lies) or light (truth).

I see no other possibility for the creatures that dwell here on earth from the scriptures we are given – we are either a creature of righteousness or we are a creature of wickedness.  If there is another option – I would be most open to how that option is described in scripture.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

Taking a different approach to the issue of the sanctity of life it could be argued that when the purpose of a life has been accomplished, there is no further need to sustain it, and when the purpose of a life has not been accomplished, there is a need to maintain it. We see hints of this approach in the extending and ending of prophet's lives. Abinadi and Joseph Smith are good examples. Prior to them accomplishing what they had been instructed to do, their lives were preserved. After they had accomplished what they were meant to do, their lives were no longer preserved and they ended shortly thereafter. 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I see no other possibility for the creatures that dwell here on earth from the scriptures we are given – we are either a creature of righteousness or we are a creature of wickedness.  If there is another option – I would be most open to how that option is described in scripture.

 

The Traveler

I get a little irritated when I see statements like this. There is only one, perhaps two creatures of pure righteousness, and they are God the Father and maybe His Son ^1, and only one creature of pure wickedness, and that is Lucifer. Absolutely everyone else is a mixture of righteousness and wickedness, with the relative proportions varying all the time. If someone is righteous 51% of the time, and wicked the other 49%, are they righteous or wicked or something else or a bit of both? 

 

1. Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Edited November 6, 2024 by askandanswer

[JohnsonJones]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

I doubt it.

From my understanding of the linked articles.  

The doctors are using the legal argument as an excuse not to treat a patient because they don’t want to treat the patient at all.

If the patient had good insurance, were presentable, and agreeable they would have been treated…

No doctor is dumb enough to think they will be prosecuted for cleaning out necrotic tissue from a uterus. 

Surgeons document every procedure with clear explanations of pathology, incisions made, cultures taken, material removed, blood loss etc.  This is for legal requirements and to allow the documentation to justify the billing of the procedure.

111 OB-gyn write letter urging lawmakers to change abortion laws after reports on pregnant womans death

Without as much of a paywall

Reaction Texas Doctors condemn abortion law

Quote

Dr. John Thoppil, the immediate past president of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is part of that group.

"We probably wouldn't have had these two deaths if we didn't have these laws in place," Thoppil said.

While the Texas Medical Board clarified that doctors do not need to wait until there is an imminent risk to patients who treat them, Thoppil said it is not enough. The law allows the public to sue doctors or anyone who helps perform an abortion for $10,000.

"While you might survive in a court of law, it doesn't stop you from going through the trials and tribulations of a lawsuit that's probably unfounded. So, you can imagine how doctors are fearful. You know, you might go to jail on making a judgment call," Thoppil said.

Do they allow non-doctors without degrees to be the president of An Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

Now, in the letter, of 111 of these doctors, there are 6 that are traceable to what @Carborendum would state would be the Abortion clinic doctors who are not "real doctors" among them, but the others appear to be actual practicing Doctors in the field currently. 

[JohnsonJones]

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What it comes down to is which articles are you reading and accepting as truth?  I read the laws and I know what they say.  I may not be a doctor.  But I know enough to state that if the baby is already dead, then the doctor can't be legally accused of aborting a baby.  End of story.  And if some DA gets over-zealous, then the doctors need to file a class-action lawsuit for malicious prosecution.  End.

It's already happened.  Doctors accused of murder when doing procedural items for an already dead fetus due to miscarriage.

Its probably why doctors in Texas wrote a letter about it recently asking for law changes. 

Link to the letter that I can find

Actual letter from what I gather

Though it leaves off around another page or two of signatures.  I found another link where I read the letter and saw all the signatures but linking doesn't seem to bring the letter up, so I'm unsure (not tech intelligent enough to figure out what's going on with that).

Another article in the Texas Tribune says that you are losing many of those in Texas who would be practicing OB-GYN's due to the laws in Texas (though I would say this article is more supposition than the letters).

Texas Obstetrics gynecology survey

Quote

Texas’ new abortion laws are stressing the state’s already beleaguered OB-GYN workforce, and threatening the pipeline of new doctors that would help provide relief, a new survey shows.

More than 70% of practicing OB-GYNs in Texas feel the near-total ban has negatively impacted their work, prohibiting them from providing high quality, evidence-based care for their patients, according to survey results released Tuesday.

One in five have considered leaving Texas, and 13% are planning to retire early as a result of the new restrictions. Meanwhile, a majority of OB-GYN medical residents say they’re considering the new abortion laws when deciding whether to stay in Texas after their training concludes.

Manatt Health, a health care consulting firm, surveyed all Texas-based members of the professional association American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and received responses from 450 practicing doctors and 47 medical residents.

 

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do they allow non-doctors without degrees to be the president of An Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

Now, in the letter, of 111 of these doctors, there are 6 that are traceable to what @Carborendum would state would be the Abortion clinic doctors who are not "real doctors" among them, but the others appear to be actual practicing Doctors in the field currently.

You might be surprised.  The good doctors work and help people.  Some surgeons are so bad with their hands or thought processes that they stop patient care and work for insurance companies reviewing care and denying care.  Some go into education (not all).  If you can’t do - then teach.  And some lose hospital privileges due to poor care, personality disorders, etc. and become administrators.  I have witnessed it all and worse.

If you think that an education provides morals and ethics think again.

When my first child was in utero our first OB/Gyn doctor asked if we wanted to give it up for adoption.  We were in school at the time, her in Law School & I in undergrad.  And we had been sealed in the temple 2 years prior.  I almost punched him in the mouth.

For 2 other of our 11 children the Physician recommended we get an amniocentesis so we could make a better decision if we needed an abortion.  We chose to change physicians.  All of our children were born healthy.  If one of our children had been born with a defect or syndrome we would have loved it just the same.

So yes, just because a person had a MD or passed a Board Certification in the past does not mean that they have your best interest in mind.  The current chief of staff of my small hospital is not board certified.  She drives me crazy.

And I know many surgeons that I wouldn’t let them touch my pet let alone a family member or friend. 

Be careful out there.

Have you ever felt uneasy after having visited a car mechanic and being told you needed thousands of dollars worth of repairs? 

Get a second opinion if you have misgivings.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

For 2 other of our 11 children the Physician recommended we get an amniocentesis so we could make a better decision if we needed an abortion.

We had a similar experience.  Our first baby was delivered by a doctor who was just there to collect a paycheck.  My wife almost died because he did not take care of her properly.  It was a nurse who discovered my wife was not doing well and figured out why.  Doctor negligence.  We decided that we would use certified midwives after that.

We had a wonderful midwife while in California.  But when we moved to Colorado, I found it odd that they (a pair of midwives) wanted all kinds of tests done to determine the health of the baby.  I was ok with a sonogram. But all these other tests seemed like they were just a waste of money to find an excuse to abort the baby.

These were midwives.

Later, they decided that they would no longer deliver our babies because we "had too many already."

These were midwives.

I delivered the last one myself.

[mikbone]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I delivered the last one myself.

I delivered our last 5.  Not a single complication.

Cost - tarp, cable ties x2, leatherman.

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I delivered our last 5. 

[Traveler]

Some of my thoughts about abortion.  As far as we know scientifically there is no other intelligent life in this universe like human life is here on earth.  For sure intelligent life as we know it is the rarest possibility of anything in this universe.  Life, especially intelligent life in more important than what any one individual wants to do with their body.

If an intelligent female does not want to get pregnant and have a baby – I believe that there is sufficient science (excluding abortions) for a reasonably thinking female to do so.  She can engage in activities to her pleasure and science has provided the means for her to prevent pregnancy.   It is my understanding that the science of preventing pregnancies is both safer and less expensive than abortions.   I do not understand why prevention is not more recognized and pushed by the hard-core feminists.  It is obvious to me that prevention preserves the rights and well being of women better than abortions.

I would say something about those that have been involved in abortions and some of those in opposition to abortions.  Aborting the unborn is not murder and does not require the rigors of repentance that murder does.  Those that have been involved can repent and be forgiven without the controls that govern murders.  Abortion is a sin but not near the indication of evil that many would impose against it.  Obviously, abortion is worse (at least in my mind) than a priesthood holder not wearing a white shirt to Sabbath worship, never-the-less the Saints of G-d are required to forgive those that participate in abortion – especially if they are making efforts to repent.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 6, 2024 by Traveler

[mikbone]

@CommanderSouth @JohnsonJones

Edited November 9, 2024 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

The liberals will continue to use disinformation, fear mongering, and sensitive feelings to promote their goals.

 

Jacob 6:12 O be wise; what can I say more?