Here's what I was responding to: -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:49:54 08/10/05 Wed
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: Here's what I was responding to:
In reply to: TastingTheBlood 's message, "But what about my questions..." on 00:51:18 08/10/05 Wed

there is no proof that abortion is murder.

OK, about your questions:

How capable is an unborn baby in making choices on its own?

It made the choice to come to earth and take a body, a choice obviously ratified by Heavenly Father.

Are you saying one must be capable of acting out on his choices in order to be human? What about a quadraplegic? Or someone who is comatose? Does their inability to fully act out their choices make them no longer human, no longer deserving of protection?

Secondly, there is the question, "how would it be enforced?" Where would the line be drawn?

Obviously, like child abuse, embezzlement and dozens of other crimes, it would have to be brought to the attention of law enforcement by a third party--someone who knew an abortion had been performed.

Line drawn? By that do you mean, at what stage after conception would abortion be illegal? IMVHO :D it would be at anytime after conception, but I know there are many--including LDS--who do not believe there is actually life at conception, so I think until 1 wk post conception we might agree that there is no human life there, only potential. But at 10 days post-conception we know there is a beating heart and a rudimentary nervous system, making it pretty certain that life has begun.

When does the life start? It seems to me that it is a continuous flow of life from sperm to child, so where is the line drawn there? And who draws that line? Is birth control wrong? Should that be banned as well?

That's a continuation of the above question--right? If by birth control you mean contraceptives, I have no problem with contraceptives. But I come from the "old school", where 20 yrs ago the church taught that abortificants (such as the IUD) were wrong because they did not prevent conception, only prevented implantation.

Obviously, I believe that life begins at conception. Philosophically and genetically I can see no other answer. Morally, I think we are obligated to draw the line at the safest place possible. We should never place the line where there might be any chance that we are wrong.

Is there any times that it would be acceptable to have an abortion? What if there is a problem with the baby or the eventual birth? What if the parents do not feel capable of raising a child with multiple handicaps or whatnot? Should they be forced to give birth and try to raise a child they may not be able to handle? Again, who tells them they should?

LOL--anyone who's ever been a parent knows you're never really capable.

Surely you don't mean to imply that anyone who is handicapped forfeits his right to life??? If a parent can't handle the handicaps, relinquish parental rights, but don't kill the poor child! When you decide to conceive a child, there is the implicit agreement that you will accept whatever/whoever God sends. What if it's a girl and you wanted a boy? What if you wanted a musical prodigy and the child has deformed hands? Do you just get to throw away any child that doesn't meet all your specifications?

I can think of no time that abortion would be right. I know the church disagrees on this. Church policy has evolved over time, so I hesitate to make church policy my yardstick for judging.

Having said that, I would not fight the enactment of laws that allowed for abortion in cases of rape or incest (even thought I think it is wrong) PROVIDED certain requirements were met: The rape had to be reported within 72 hrs and a morning after pill administered. The incested child is permenantly removed from the home and the man prosecuted. And the woman receives extensive counselling on the long term consequences of abortion and is offered all the support she thinks she needs to carry the baby full term (IOW, her decision should not be based on a lack of money, medical/emotional/social support to see it through. There are lots of Victim's Compensation programs--funded by fines and penalties paid by criminals--that should offer every type of support necessary for the woman.) And absolutely NO abortions ever allowed after week 12 for any reason.

Would abortion be punishable the same as murder? Could someone be put to death for having one?

No, I wouldn't advocate the death penalty, except possibly in the case of a dr who performs numerous abortions. Since the mother can't see the child, it may be difficult to visualize the baby as a human and so judgement is somewhat diminished.

I just cannot see handing the government the power to decide for people.

By this do you mean decide whether or not to have an abortion? If we've established that it is a taking of human life, why on earth shouldn't gov have a say?? As Kathy has said, the primary purpose of gov is to protect innocent life. If this is a human that is being killed, then the gov has every responsibility to intervene.

I'm thinking that maybe only 70% or so believe abortion to be murder, therefore wrong and punishable. The criminalization of 30% of the population sounds ridiculous to me.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that if enough people don't think something is wrong, then it's OK--sort of a majority rules, only in this case a significant minority rules???

First of all, it is a mistake to say that because 30% support abortion that 30% are practicing it. The latest numbers I have for ND says that 1400 abortions were performed in a state of 600,000--that's about 2% (if I put my decimal in the right place LOL) and about 1/3 of them were repeat customers (and a good number were from neighboring states--SD and MN.)

Secondly, when abortion was illegal, even fewer people supported abortion, much less practiced it. Legalizing it has relaxed public repulsion over the practice. So it's kind of wrong to say "Let's keep it legal because so many support it" when 30 yrs ago the pro-aborts argued "It should be legal regardless of how many oppose it."

But as with all so called "moral issues" the approach has to be two-pronged: Legal censure and a public debate that brings a greater understanding and repulsion over the practice.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]