Jason wrote:BlueMoon5 wrote:We are governed by principles, but they are not driven by a theocracy based on LDS doctrine. That must wait for another day.Jason wrote: . . . Oh yes...I make a fundamental error in making the assumption that we are governed by principles....how dare I....
I should follow your lead instead and justify satanic practices because wicked men happen to make it "legal"....BlueMoon5 wrote:I didn't say, as you suppose, that the serious failings of humankind (sins of commission and omission) justify wickedness. I said that Satan is unbound; hence, the natural man (inside and outside of the LDS Church) is vulnerable to his evil influences. The millennium and Christ's reign are not yet here.Jason wrote: What's your point??? How does that justify wickedness......or rationalizing wickedness???: You are rationalizing or supporting/justifying taking someone's ability to procreate away (as well as infecting with infectious diseases and even taking their life)....secretly and against their will. That is wickedness if there ever was wickedness.BlueMoon5 wrote:I have done no such thing. I have said that the program was well-intentioned, and--in fact--it benefitted at least some women who could ill afford to have another child, inasmuch as they already had 6 or more from different fathers, all of whom moved on to impregnate still more women. Note, too, that 1) the women were not entirely blameless; and 2) some welcomed the fact that they would not have to bear more children. If there's anything satanic about that scenario it relates principally to the sperm donors, not to the eugenics program proper.Jason wrote: One of the greatest gifts God has given us in this earthly experience is the capability to procreate. You have been rationalizing and justifying taking that gift away from a brother or sister in secret against their will. Please explain how that is not satanic doctrine!
As I have said before, Jason, it seems to me that you consistently overlook the fact that a middle ground exists re. difficult issues; i.e., not everything has to be polarized.
Please visit the Church's online Gospel Library and open "Birth Control." There you will find the following statement:
"When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. . . . Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children."
What do you think the health/financial status was of many of the poor women who were burdened with caring for 6+ children without the help of a husband? Any thoughts about that?
: ...you digress away from the issue - that it was done against their will and in secret. If they volunteered it would be an entirely different matter. But no we have people who played God and based on IQ tests or skin color....did some horrific things to other people in secret without their knowledge. This was a direct violation of their inalienable rights (bestowed by God). And you justify that....
Your absolutist mindset is on full display here. The church states (above): "Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children." Many/most of the women in the eugenics program were not LDS and did not have husbands. Furthermore, most of those women were dirt-poor, victims of a variety of mental and physical ailments, and (once again) already burdened with too many children. Additionally, some had no understanding of birth control. So, if an LDS couple, as a result of praying and fasting--based on church counsel--determines that they should not have more children, is that wickedness? Is that a direct violation of their inalienable rights? Your understandable rejoinder will be, "Of course not; they had full disclosure." The designers of the eugenics program, seeing the plight of certain women, and seeing that they had no one to whom they could turn (and, yes, recognizing the burden they were placing on the welfare system), took the initiative to come to their aid and did so with the best of intentions. Did that constitute wickedness? What if disclosure had been given to the women? How many of them, given their desperate circumstances, would have said, in effect, "Oh, no, I want more children--seven isn't enough!" I don't pretend to know the answer, but I can make a well-reasoned guess. And what of the children born in abject poverty without a father for a role model? What would the future hold for them--and for society? Your characterization of the eugenics program as wickedness per se (I'll cut your some slack) is unreasonable and unfair. You don't know even a tenth of the circumstances; you weren't there. Were there abuses? Of course; a recent TV documentary tells the heart-rending story of a woman who, as I recall, didn't have any children and was still sterilized--and without her knowledge. I think that's indefensible; and yes, I think that's wickedness.