Lies, damn lies, and things pro-choicers say.

Roe Vs. Wade was directly geared against the then Texas abortion laws that prohibited all abortions unless the mother’s life was endangered (not only health). Thought the Jane Roe later recanted her claim, the hearings began over the issue of a woman’s right to have an abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape. Texas’s postion did not allow abortions for rape, incest, or the mother’s health. The LDS position allows for abortions due to rape, incest, and the mother’s health. Roe Vs. Wade allowed for women to have abortions for instances of rape, incest, and the mother’s health.

Here is a little table to help you out Adam:

Pre RvW Texas Law:
Rape- not okay
Incest – not okay
Health – not okay

LDS position:
Rape – okay
Incest – okay
Health – okay

Roe vs Wade
Rape – okay
incest – okay
health – okay

Does that help you any?

The rest of your attempt at a rebuttal is faulty because you are trying to compare the legal claims of RvW with the moral claims of the LDS Church.

Go to general conference and talk to a pro-life protester holding up an image of an aborted fetus. He/she will tell you that the LDS is pro-choice and a spawn of satan for their support of abortion.

You like many ultra-conservatives fail to realize that their is a huge difference between legality and morality. Most pro-choicers I know are quite against abortions for mundane reasons (such as eye-color and annoyance), but also realize that their dislike of abortions stand on either theological or emotional grounds which cannot legally be forced on others. Furthermore, they realize that the decision to have or not to have an abortion is a terribly difficult decision that they pray to god they would never have to face, but realize at the same time that it should be a decision left up to the mother and not the state.

Roe v. Wade:
can kill a child up to the moment of birth if a doctor–even a doctor at the abortion clinic–says its for ‘health’, including mental health aka you say you want an abortion so obviously it would depress you if you couldn’t get one, right? Right?

actually you are wrong. Roe vs. Wade gives the state the right to prohibit abortions after the point of vitality (which is a few weeks before the third trimester in several states). Roe vs. Wade recognizes that vitality can be a practical and objective rationality for defining a fetus as a person, and thus believes that the state has every right to protect that fetus as a person. Mere depression cannot be used as grounds for a late-term abortion in most states.

LDS Church:
Serious health issues only, have to consult with bishop. Serious questions about the morality of late-term abortions.

‘Serious health issues’ is rather ambiguous. I know of a few occasions where LDS church leaders have allowed and even encouraged abortions where mental and emotional health of the mother was the issue.
And as I have already pointed out, the morality of late-term abortions is highly questioned in Roe vs. Wade.

LDS:
definitely wrong except for rape, incest, or serious health stuff, and in those cases the church has no position, you have to pray to find out for yourself

Before Roe vs. Wade a mormon girl/woman could do all the praying she wanted and would still be forced by the state to carry out her pregnancies of rape, incest, and serious health to full-term. Roe vs. Wade gave her the right to live out her religous beliefs.

Lies, damn lies, and things pro-choicers say.

Roe v. Wade:
allow abortion during the first couple of trimesters for any reason at all, because you don’t think the baby’s skin color will match your outfit or whatever

LDS:
definitely wrong except for rape, incest, or serious health stuff, and in those cases the church has no position, you have to pray to find out for yourself

Roe v. Wade:
can kill a child up to the moment of birth if a doctor–even a doctor at the abortion clinic–says its for ‘health’, including mental health aka you say you want an abortion so obviously it would depress you if you couldn’t get one, right? Right?

LDS Church:
Serious health issues only, have to consult with bishop. Serious questions about the morality of late-term abortions.

Roe v. Wade:
abortion, generally speaking, is a right

LDS Church:
abortion, generally speaking, is “like unto murder”

You still don’t get it. The very reasons why you and other pro-lifers such as yourself use to deny say that abortions are immoral are incompatible with your subclause of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest.

And as I said in my last comment, the life of the child (or fetus, as pro-choicers adamantly say, in an attempt to dehumanize the growing child) should be accomodated, respected, and provided for.

They use the term ‘fetus’ because that is what the unborn child is. It’s the medical term. An abortion is a medical procedure. It’s a big-boy word.

Ah, so you’ve gone from recommending books to help my ignorance to saying that I wear blinders. Splendid. Are you saying that a person cannot have “ultra-conservative” views (as you’ve labeled them) without being “blinded” and ignorant of other views, opinions, and evidences?

No. I am saying that you wear blinders that maintain your ignorant ultra-conservative positions.

I feel that Roe v. Wade was not about choice, it was about privacy.

Yes, and that privacy was directly related to her privacy in making the choice without the state intruding. Have you read RvW?

Under the same absurd argument, one could claim the constitutional right [t]o murder somebody in their own bedroom is also sanctioned.

Perhaps if someone were stupid enough to make that fallacios slipper-slope argument, but luckily nobody is that stupid (or wait, did someone just make that argument?) The right to privacy, like any constitutional right, is conditioned as to whether (and to what extent) it intrudes on the right of others, as was well explained in RvW.

This is unfounded, for there are and should be laws that protect a person’s life, whether that person is 10 years old or 10 weeks into gestation to become a person.

That all depends on how you wish to define a life. If you want to talk about a clump of cells, then a drop of my blood, a fresh scab, and my semen all have a right to life. If you want to use a biblical definition, then you will most likely have to wait until the baby takes its first breath. A philosophical definition usually depends on the ability to rationally think, which may not occur until several months of post-natal development. Medical definitions of life usually center around viability (which was sustained by RvW as an adequate time for a state to prohibit abortions).

This includes the protection of life, and all partnerships (marriage between a man and a woman) that will continue the propagation of life

Should only fertile couples be allowed to marry? Should abortions still be allowed for instances of rape and incest? Should a lesbian couple who conceives be supported by the state? You seem to love to spout out rhetoric without looking at the implications.

My main concern with this issue is that it has not been legislated by congress. For a judge (or several of them) to issue such a ruling is saddening, for this is an issue that needs to be decided on by the voice of the people, not presidential nominees.

So you disagree with judicial mandates of the constitution?

what I’m against is the manner in which it was decided and set forth into law.

Stupid constitution.

Simply because you do not agree with me and are not aware of the principles upon which I base my assumptions, opionions, and beliefs does not indicate my ignorance in the matter.

No. I think you are ignorant on the matter because you are ignorant on the matter.

This is a form of ad hominem to discredit the person with whom you are debating in order to promote your own position.

I’m not discrediting you. I’m describing your ignorance on the matter. An ad hominem implies that I am countering your argument because of your ignorance. That is not the case. Your argument merely illustrates your ignorance of the matter.

As I said previously, the point of this post was to show my disgust with the magazine’s request. If you disagree, fine.

Exactly. Your ignorance of the issues in the abortion debate led you to a very faulty misunderstanding of the magazine’s request.

http://www.latterdayblog.com/is-a-fetus-a-person.html
http://www.latterdayblog.com/abortion-destroys-freedom.html

In denouncing abortion, I specifically stated that there are certain circumstances where such an option would be understandable. And as I said in my last comment, the life of the child (or fetus, as pro-choicers adamantly say, in an attempt to dehumanize the growing child) should be accomodated, respected, and provided for.

Your view of pro-choice advocates is quite biased from the ultra-conservative blinders you seem to wear.

Ah, so you’ve gone from recommending books to help my ignorance to saying that I wear blinders. Splendid. Are you saying that a person cannot have “ultra-conservative” views (as you’ve labeled them) without being “blinded” and ignorant of other views, opinions, and evidences?

An attempt to reduce the Roe v. Wade decision to a mere issue of a woman’s choice in the matter does not accurately describe the breadth of the court’s decision. I feel that Roe v. Wade was not about choice, it was about privacy. Indeed, Roe v. Wade was established because the court thought that most of the existing laws regarding abortion are in a constitutional violation of a woman’s right to privacy.

Under the same absurd argument, one could claim the constitutional right to murder somebody in their own bedroom is also sanctioned. Many liberals are so concerned with the government getting involved “in the bedroom”, and thus fight for same-sex marriage rights and abortion rights. This is unfounded, for there are and should be laws that protect a person’s life, whether that person is 10 years old or 10 weeks into gestation to become a person.

Once again, the underlying issue is principle. The government as a whole (and on a good day) serves to promote the security, prosperity, and protection of its citizens. This includes the protection of life, and all partnerships (marriage between a man and a woman) that will continue the propagation of life.

Even Ms. Roe herself was taken advantage of by liberals seeking to promote this cause. My main concern with this issue is that it has not been legislated by congress. For a judge (or several of them) to issue such a ruling is saddening, for this is an issue that needs to be decided on by the voice of the people, not presidential nominees.

I’m not against the principle of Roe v. Wade, what I’m against is the manner in which it was decided and set forth into law. I’m against the way in which liberals adamantly protect this ruling, rather than letting Congress debate and decide upon it. I’m against unprincipled application of it. Sure, there are many circumstances in which a woman will only seek an abortion for legitimate purposes. But there are far too many women aborting their children (“fetuses”) for no valid reason.

There are a plenty of other problems which you seem to ignore in your quite ignorant portrayal of the dillema. These include the definition of life, the opening of illegal abortions, women’s rights, patriarchal abuse and dominance, mental health, children’s rights, potential parental abuse, and forgiveness.

Simply because you do not agree with me and are not aware of the principles upon which I base my assumptions, opionions, and beliefs does not indicate my ignorance in the matter. You’ve stated this accusation repeatedly, and I’d be appreciative if you stopped. This is a form of ad hominem to discredit the person with whom you are debating in order to promote your own position. I am not ignorant, although you may disagree, so there is no longer a need for you to say so.

My point in this post was not to open a large debate into the weightier matters of abortion, women’s and children’s rights, or the definition of life. Such a topic has been hotly debated elsewhere many times over. I have my opinions, you have your own, and it is not my desire to drag this out and debate it further. As I said previously, the point of this post was to show my disgust with the magazine’s request. If you disagree, fine.

You’d be hard-pressed to convince me of that.

Roe v. Wade (which was a pro-choice decision) was directly waged against the then Texas abortion laws that prohibited abortions in all cases except where the mother’s life (not merely health) was threatened. This was specifically centered around the Jane Roe of the case who claimed she became pregnant from a rape (which she later claimed was a lie). Roe v. Wade was specifically pointed at allowing abortions in cases of rape, without RvW such women would still not be allowed to have abortions in many states. Roe v. Wade opened up the possibilitly for women to have the choice to have an abortion in cases of rape and incest, choices that they would not have been allowed without RvW. Pro-lifers who understand RvW and yet still seek to overturn RvW want to take away that same option of choice from those who are confronted with such situations. The LDS position advocates the choice for women confronted with those very issues.

There are a plenty of other problems which you seem to ignore in your quite ignorant portrayal of the dillema. These include the definition of life, the opening of illegal abortions, women’s rights, patriarchal abuse and dominance, mental health, children’s rights, potential parental abuse, and forgiveness.

Your view of pro-choice advocates is quite biased from the ultra-conservative blinders you seem to wear. For example, you claim that “Theirs is an advocation to end life whenever you feel like it.” Most pro-choicers would disagree with you. You clearly haven’t read Roe v. Wade which is a pro-choice verdict and prescribes limitations on abortions.

Furthermore, your limited (or ignorant) knowledge of the whole issue is quite clear as you paint the abortion dilemma as an almost simple black and white issue. I haven’t read the Ms. article, but I have a very difficult time with the disgustingly conservative CNS’s assessment of it. It seems most likely that the abortion petition is not to advocate your pathetically skewed version of the pro-choice positon, but rather to demonstrate that abortion is a serious and difficult issue face thousands of women, in contrast to your’s and others’ silly perception that abortion is a clear and cut case.

“The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.”
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks

How do these in any way diminish the child’s right to life?

I never claimed that the child doesn’t have a right to live. Wherever possible, the life of the child should be considered and supported. However, as Elder Oaks says, there are certain instances when an abortion is permissible. For example, if on the hospital bed my wife is giving birth and has complications, if it came to it I would decide to save my wife’s life instead of the child’s. My wife and I can continue to have more children, and we will be able to raise that child during the millenium, as Joseph Smith taught.

Most pro-choicers actually have moral and emotional qualms against abortion.

You’d be hard-pressed to convince me of that.

Most pro-choicers actually advocate a position closer to the LDS position than most pro-lifers.

You’d be hard-pressed to convince me of that.

In fact, the LDS position is a pro-choice position that largely agrees with Roe v. Wade and stands in stark contrast to the Texas laws that Roe v. Wade overturned.

The difference is that the LDS position is based on principle – the extension of and sanctity regarding life. Only when a life is threated in a certain way should another life be terminated. While the LDS position allows for “choice” in the matter, it is not the same choice that “pro-choicers” advocate. Theirs is an advocation to end life whenever you feel like it, which is a position sans principle.

The point of this point is to show how absurd it is for this magazine to call upon women to stand “in solidarity” to tell the world that they’ve aborted a baby. Imagine what the world would be like if we had magazines where people collectively stated “I’m an adulterer!”, “I sell drugs to minors!”, or “I beat my wife!”…

How are abortions due to incest, rape, or threat of the mother’s life not selfish? You can’t go off saying that the life of the child is important and valuable unless conception was due to incest or rape or until the life of the mother is threatened. How do these in any way diminish the child’s right to life?

Also, your portrayal of pro-choice advocates is quite a farce. Most pro-choicers actually have moral and emotional qualms against abortion. Most pro-choicers are totally against the notion of abortion as contraception. Most pro-choicers want restrictions placed on partial-birth abortions. Most pro-choicers actually advocate a position closer to the LDS position than most pro-lifers. In fact, the LDS position is a pro-choice position that largely agrees with Roe v. Wade and stands in stark contrast to the Texas laws that Roe v. Wade overturned.