In a perfect world, people would be mature and intelligent enough to decide that the rights of the woman trump the rights of the baby, unless the woman’s choices intentionally harm or kill the baby, in which case the baby’s rights are more important. But that’s not what happens.

I am a huge birth advocate, specifically the removal of pregnant women’s rights in the hospital. The entire “fetal rights” argument has created a climate of hostility and adversity in the delivery room, as doctors are using this line of argument to force pregnant women to “consent” to certain procedures, in the name of “fetus rights.” There are cases of court-ordered c-sections for women who have every right to attempt a VBAC. There are cases of CPS removing babies from women who choose to have unassisted home births, even when the outcome is positive. And in general, coercive, abusive, and dishonest tactics are tolerated in L&D wards in hospitals around the nation EVERY DAY, because the attitude of “fetus rights” prevails. Doctors do whatever they want to women, despite evidence that instead of helping or saving anyone, it causes more harm, and everyone accepts that, assuming that doctors “speak for the fetus.” (And of course, assuming pregnant women can’t be trusted to make rational decisions.)

Interestingly enough, women’s rights advocates love to lobby for abortion and pro-choice, yet they refuse to have anything to do with women’s rights in labor and delivery. In the hospital, pregnant women have no rights. It is a travesty what women are subjected to in the delivery room, and women’s rights advocates just look the other way.

How can personhood laws be reconciled with the tendency to use that same argument to abuse human rights at the end of pregnancy?

My family was actually talking about birth control when my sister got married. At the time, what I knew (from school) was a complete fabrication regarding the function of the pill. When my sister told me what it did (because she was taking it) I declared,”Isn’t that abortion?”

I was nearly thrown out of the house by my whole family. What can I say? I’m the black sheep where ever I am.

Many women I know use the pill or an IUD, and most women I know are LDS. Most of the ones I know do this for reasons of convenience ( some for health reasons). Although I’ve always wanted a large family, I used to not see anything wrong with using the pill to “take a break” from having kids for a while. I’ve changed my mind. The choice only affects me and my family, and I don’t know that it is what everyone should do, but I am very happy with it, and I was always uncomfortable taking the pill.

To look at this from a different angle, you might like to read this article. It isn’t LDS, it’s actually written by a Catholic, but it examines what effect easy birth control has had on the family and society.

Amidst an ongoing debate among prolife advocates about whether to classify the Pill as an abortifacient or a prophylactic, pro-abortion advocates have published an authoritative statement declaring that the Pill prevents implantation of embryos, thereby causing an abortion.

…the statement by the ASRM clearly indicates that the pill is medically classified as a drug that acts by “preventing implantation,” thereby causing the death of a fertilized embryo – a unique and living human being.

My point is that for varying circumstances of the same violation of Divine Law, there are varying methods/availability of forgiveness. Not a single argument for either side in this thread contradicts this line of thinking. The only exception being denying the Holy Ghost which by definition is an all-or-nothing sin.

Is abortion actually murder? But if so, why is it considered a forgiveable sin, but murder is generally not so considered?

It is because of knowledge and understanding of what we are doing. Are we fully aware that we are killing a separate living being? How? Even the prophets have not definitively stated when the spirit enters the body. The fact that we don’t really know is what makes this such an issue.

I can’t believe I’m about to write this, but Obama had a point. We shouldn’t presume to be able to answer such theological questions when the prophets themselves have never definitively spoken on the subject.

All we know is that it is an abomination. That should be enough. For those who aren’t LDS, the debate will rage until doomsday.

I’d still love to hear your point of view. Feel free to email me! (my email address is on my blog)

I understand why you would see a contradiction. But from my point of view, it is not a contradiction.

This point of view has evolved over a decade or more of discussing morality with people of many faiths and people of no faith and comparing that with what I’ve read in scriptures. To explain it here would be beyond the scope of this blog. Just accept that it is my OPINION from a certain POINT OF VIEW.

I also think that unecessarily killing a person in self-defense is wrong. However, I believe, spiritually and rationally, that people have the right to go to the degree necessary to defend themselves from people who would do the same to them. I mean, some people think that they have the right to kill anybody who breaks into their home. This is plainly untrue. To the extent that you don’t overreact, that you’re motivated by true self-defense and not anger or revenge, your hands are clean.

(I’m assuming from JeffT’s comments to Bill that Bill is also LDS – otherwise his scripture and beliefs regarding this issue and God’s will may be different.)

God has told us we may defend our lives and family, even unto bloodshed. Why is it that you feel self-defense is a sin? I’m curious, because that point of view contradicts what we read in scripture.

It is still wrong to have a short temper. But I will more easily forgive someone who has lost his temper if some circumstance would cause such a person to be more prone to losing his temper.

There are several ways we can go about it. Please note that I am not advocating any of these. I’m merely pointing out some things for people to think about.

The argument about the pig vs an embryo can be countered by the DNA argument. When an egg or sperm are separate, the DNA is not that of a human. It is only part of a human. But when they combine, the DNA is that of a human being — complete and uncut.

Another possible beginning of life is to define life as the presence of brainwaves. Doctor’s define death as the moment brainwaves cease. Wouldn’t it make sense to define the beginning of life as the moment when brainwaves commence? This is actually quite early in the pregnancy. But we do have the definitional issue. If we can’t accept that an embryo with brainwaves is “alive”, then we need to change the definition of death to something else. Of course, this feeds into the issue of euthanasia. But let’s not make this into a threadjack.

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in a “soul” or “spirit”. They believe that the only thing that separates humans from a mass of cells is “breath”. When Genesis refers to the “breath of life” in Adam, they believe it litterally means that God got Adam to start breathing and THAT is what made him “alive”. Does anyone know the JW position on abortion? I am aware that the fetus’s lungs DO function while in the womb. But is that where JW’s draw the line?

The current legal definition is when the baby takes its first breath of air. So I guess that if any of us holds our breath then we can be killed with impunity.

The spiritual definition is when the spirit enters the body. NONE of us knows when that happens. NONE of us.

My personal position on abortion is:

1) It is an unfortunate truth that SOMETIMES abortion is a necessary evil.
2) I hold in high regard those women who personally make an informed decision to have the baby even in cases of rape or incest.
3) I also understand the difficulty many women have in deciding for their own circumstances what to do with the pregnancy.
4) I am saddened and hold in disdain the women who look on abortion as just another method of birth control.

As far as the church position on abortion — whether it is murder, and yet is forgiveable. IMHO, the belief that we can be forgiven of our sins is dependent on:

1) The greviousness of the sin
2) Our sincerity in seeking forgiveness
3) The circumstances and other factors that would make it “more forgiveable”.

I PERSONALY believe it is still a sin to kill someone in self-defense. But it is a forgiveable sin. Cold-blooded premeditated murder is the 2nd most grevious sin and is (to paraphrase Alma) “not easy to receive a forgiveness”. For most it is impossible to receive a forgiveness. Notice that Jesus NEVER hurt anyone in ANY circumstance. Because he needed to live a perfect life. There was NO forgiveness without his PERFECT life. Again, just my opinion.

It is still wrong to get upset at someone. But I will more easily forgive someone who has “had a hard day” etc.

In the same vein, it is a sin to abort a baby at ANY stage. But I believe it is more forgiveable in early stages than in later stages. But as the official Church statement says — Abortion in any form “must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day”

This could be useful though: If you feel there’s some aspect of your behaviour that I’m sending up, see if the critique is useful, and change if you want to. Or not.

(Yep, that “evidence for God” mention sounds familiar…)

And I take exception to your “avoiding facts altogether” salvo.

I’d be happy to continue the discussion if you care to respond there, even though it’s getting old hearing how my ideas are necessarily worse and less rational than your ideas, LOL …

Other than that, live and let live; but stop with the accusations.

CAST
Mike
Ike

SCENE 1

Mike: Abortion and some birth control ought to be outlawed.

Ike: What on earth for?

Mike: I believe that God doesn’t approve of them.

Ike: That’s all very well for you. But I don’t believe in that. I think people have the right to make up their own minds.

Mike: What you don’t realise is that God gave you those rights. And now he wants them back. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

Ike: Well, you have your moral views, I’ll have mine.

Mike: Huh. I didn’t think people like you were capable of having moral views.

Ike: Wow, that’s a pretty crappy attitude you’ve got there.

Mike: ‘The guilty taketh the truth to be hard.’ Don’t blame me. I’m just saying what God would say if he were here.

Ike: Now you’re just attributing your personal views to God.

Mike: Oh, they’re not just my personal views. It’s also the views of holy prophets, who you need to obey.

Ike: I noticed that God always seems to dislike what you dislike. That’s quite a coincidence.

Mike: No, that’s what you call ‘being in tune’.

THE END

Being intimate with your spouse, regardless of the status of the woman’s ovulation cycle, is not an immoral or inherently destructive action (on the contrary, it is intended in part to be quite the opposite). On the other hand, using medicine or devices to alter the woman’s body in such a way that a fertilized egg will never implant and develop (unless the medicine/device fails) is an action that is inherently and intentionally destructive. Therein lies the difference, I believe.

Connor, I don’t understand your argument here. Why is using medicine or a device to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus immoral? What or who determines the morality of such a thing? I support efforts to prevent late term abortions and also efforts to educate people about adoption during the early terms. But trying to argue that taking the pill is tantamount to abortion is a real stretch in my opinion.