The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
marktheshark
captain of 100
Posts: 509

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by marktheshark »

David13 wrote:I think the cave in is that this is a 180 degree u turn from Prop 8.
I see it as something quite different than the cave on polygamy. I see polygamy as prohibited, but not as ethically and morally wrong.
And there was pressure from the federal government. Maybe that's what happened here. Does anyone see the possibility of intervention into state affairs by the federal government regarding this issue?
I do.
And I don't like it. I believe in states rights.
dc
It is not a 180 degree U turn. That would consist of the Church publicly advocating for gay marriage. It isn't doing anything even remotely close to that. Gimme a break.

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by samizdat »

marktheshark wrote:
David13 wrote:I think the cave in is that this is a 180 degree u turn from Prop 8.
I see it as something quite different than the cave on polygamy. I see polygamy as prohibited, but not as ethically and morally wrong.
And there was pressure from the federal government. Maybe that's what happened here. Does anyone see the possibility of intervention into state affairs by the federal government regarding this issue?
I do.
And I don't like it. I believe in states rights.
dc
It is not a 180 degree U turn. That would consist of the Church publicly advocating for gay marriage. It isn't doing anything even remotely close to that. Gimme a break.
Not a U turn in any sense of the imagination. More so a realization that there are more and more members that are failing to understand the first commandment given in the Garden of Eden and that going after each and every one of them is going to distract from the mission of the Church. The Church is NOT going to change any time soon on gay marriage, nor will it, with the current leadership there. (Honestly I don't want it to change).

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Fiannan »

samizdat wrote:
marktheshark wrote:
David13 wrote:I think the cave in is that this is a 180 degree u turn from Prop 8.
I see it as something quite different than the cave on polygamy. I see polygamy as prohibited, but not as ethically and morally wrong.
And there was pressure from the federal government. Maybe that's what happened here. Does anyone see the possibility of intervention into state affairs by the federal government regarding this issue?
I do.
And I don't like it. I believe in states rights.
dc
It is not a 180 degree U turn. That would consist of the Church publicly advocating for gay marriage. It isn't doing anything even remotely close to that. Gimme a break.
Not a U turn in any sense of the imagination. More so a realization that there are more and more members that are failing to understand the first commandment given in the Garden of Eden and that going after each and every one of them is going to distract from the mission of the Church. The Church is NOT going to change any time soon on gay marriage, nor will it, with the current leadership there. (Honestly I don't want it to change).
The first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth. Is the Church strongly emphasizing that nowadays? You know, Romans 1, often used to say that the New Testament is against homosexuality, is in actuality a condemnation of consumerism and birth control. Read it carefully and you will see that homosexuality is a symptom of an anti-family and materialistic lifestyle. Once one begins to see sexuality as nothing more than "bonding" or pleasure then it becomes a form of recreation. Once that occurs then why not express yourself sexually to someone of the same gender?

As for legislation:

Look, if I owned a cake shop and a homosexual couple wanted a cake with a Village People theme I would make it for them. If I were a principal at a private academy and I knew a lesbian couple who had three kids I would encourage them to enroll their kids in my school. If I were a public school teacher and some gay students asked me to be the faculty adviser for their organization I would probably do it since I hate how some kids get bullied for their choices. However, I am not sure the state should mandate that in all three cases I should have to do this or face some sort of prosecution.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Thinker »

Lizzy60 wrote:I am grieved by what he said about the Church's unwillingness to engage on abortion issues.
That was my response.
Those at the top seem to care more about themselves than "the least of these."

I still think that regarding their extreme change with homosexual "rights" - one of the listed goals of the homosexual movement is to take away church's tax exempt status. That concerns those at the top, so they are kissing up to the new bully on the block.

http://m.ipost.christianpost.com/news/t ... /?redirect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Government encouragement, support and even requirement of sex education courses, prepared and taught by homosexual women and men, presenting homosexuality — and homosexual sex acts — as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle and a viable alternative to heterosexuality (for a recent summary of the queering of sex education in America, click HERE, and for a blatant admission that gay activists want to indoctrinate your kids, click HERE). This is where your children are taught details about homosexual sex acts and forced to commit them. (See 12, 20 and 21);

2. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent (making your children open season for pedophiles);

3. Repeal of all laws that restrict the gender or number of persons entering into a marriage unit;

4. Extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit, regardless of gender or numbers;

5. Addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of minorities protected by anti-discrimination laws (this would be the first people group in America granted such status based upon volitional behavior rather than upon immutable characteristics, such as gender or race);

6. Deny tax-exempt status to organizations and institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian churches and para-church ministries);

7. Deny federal funding to institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people (this would include Christian colleges and universities and para-church ministries);

8. Passage of “hate crimes” laws in all 50 states (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);

9. Passage of laws making it criminal to have thoughts and speech of a “homophobic” nature (regardless of the fact that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution);


10. Permeate every level of government with gay-friendly officials (to codify the gay agenda);

11. Demand legalized same-sex marriage, thereby wrecking the traditional institution of marriage (for a recent admission of this intent by a pro-gay activist, click HERE);

12. Attack the Bible, especially where homosexuality is condemned, and make it appear that God does not condemn homosexuality by inventing new interpretations of selected verses (7);

13. Win over Christian churches and denominations, thereby neutralizing the greatest obstacle to the homosexual movement (7);

14. Partner with the liberal media in mounting a propaganda campaign to win over the majority of heterosexuals to the homosexual movement;

15. Portray homosexuals as victims, instead of aggressive challengers;

16. Make homosexuals look good by publicizing famous homosexuals who are well-liked by the general public;

17. Make homosexuality look good by portraying lasting, committed homosexual relationships as the norm of the homosexual lifestyle (never mind the facts that such homosexual relationships are the exception rather than the rule and that promiscuity is rampant in most such relationships, relative to heterosexual marriage);

18. Make the anti-gay “victimizers” look bad by coining and repeating charges of hatred, homophobe and bigotry against anyone who does not agree with them;

19. Knowingly and intentionally propagate lies, myths and hoaxes that promote the ideals and goals of the homosexual movement, in order to win over the heterosexual majority;

20. Punish businesses that do not support the homosexual movement (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations, lawsuits and negative media blitzes).

21. Jamming. This tactic refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda in order to marginalize them and make them shut up, and it requires the full cooperation of the liberal media.
Last edited by Thinker on March 24th, 2015, 7:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Lizzy60 »

Thinker wrote:
Lizzy60 wrote:I am grieved by what he said about the Church's unwillingness to engage on abortion issues.
That was my response.
Those at the top seem to care more about themselves than "the least of these."

I still think that regarding their extreme change with homosexual "rights" - one of the listed goals of the homosexual movement is to take away church's tax exempt status. That concerns those at the top, so they are kissing up to the new bully on the block.
"You can buy anything in this world with money."

samizdat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by samizdat »

You have a point there Fiannan. I think the people are smart enough to realize for themselves that it doesn't pay to support businesses that make your things grudgingly or don't make them at all for being different than them. No need for gov't enforcement, especially with social media where one can report against discrimination done by a company and persuade others NOT to go there.
#thumbsup

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Obrien »

KMCopeland wrote:
Obrien wrote:
Lizzy60 wrote:I am grieved by what he said about the Church's unwillingness to engage on abortion issues.
The unborn don't have parades and demand rights in public housing, transportation and employment.
I think abortion is a horrible thing. I think widespread, thoughtless abortion is even worse. But can you help me understand how, if it were to be made illegal again, how that law would be enforced?
KMC - I have started to reply to your question numerous times, and deleted every draft. I always end up stating my personal philosophy and NOT answering your question.

Laws can only be enforced in two ways - by persuasion or by force. If a segment of the population (both male and female) are hard hearted enough to kill their own children, I'm not sure how to enforce such a law on them. I suppose abortion could be made a capital crime. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're willing to pay a doctor to tear your own child apart with surgical instruments, obviously you don't think that's cruel or unusual. Perhaps if we tore a few adults to pieces in the town square (and I don't mean women here only, but the men who helped cause "the problem", and the abortionist, too) people would be willing to revisit their concepts of cruel and unusual punishment and the efficacy of abortion to solve "their problem".

Just a thought...

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Thinker »

Thanks Fiannan. Let me pull my jaw off the floor. ;)

Mark, I'm not anti-Mormon. I love this church and have often defended the truth and good aspects about it, even while I warn of the negative aspects about it. Nobody's perfect and this church is made up of imperfect people. Don't trust in them. Trust only in God, because all else will fail. That's scripture and I believe it based on what I've experienced.
Obrien wrote:
KMCopeland wrote:I think abortion is a horrible thing. I think widespread, thoughtless abortion is even worse. But can you help me understand how, if it were to be made illegal again, how that law would be enforced?
KMC - I have started to reply to your question numerous times, and deleted every draft. I always end up stating my personal philosophy and NOT answering your question.

Laws can only be enforced in two ways - by persuasion or by force. If a segment of the population (both male and female) are hard hearted enough to kill their own children, I'm not sure how to enforce such a law on them. I suppose abortion could be made a capital crime. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're willing to pay a doctor to tear your own child apart with surgical instruments, obviously you don't think that's cruel or unusual. Perhaps if we tore a few adults to pieces in the town square (and I don't mean women here only, but the men who helped cause "the problem", and the abortionist, too) people would be willing to revisit their concepts of cruel and unusual punishment and the efficacy of abortion to solve "their problem".

Just a thought...
It's not all-or-nothing.
Rarely, there are actually valid health reasons to abort - when the life of the mother would be lost, so it makes sense to lose 1 rather than 2 lives.
However, that's only about 3% of abortions.
93% of abortions are given the excuse as the mother finds her child (developing human) as "inconvenient" and her convenience and irresponsible lack of birth control is deemed more important than a child's right to LIVE.

What laws needs to do but haven't...
1) Limit the reason for abortion to health reasons.
2) Limit the time waiting for abortion. By 8 weeks gestation, all body systems (including nervous system) are intact, so it is believed that by that time or at least by 12 weeks, children begin feeling PAIN. By about 22 weeks, it is beyond doubt that the child feels pain, yet Obama issued approval for late-term abortion, cruel and inhumane murders of children, based on age discrimination.

Meanwhile, since laws are as they are, it is best to inform and educate people, especially women about the truths about abortion - the different methods of killing the child, and human development - the child's horrific pain in feeling his/her body ripped apart, as is most commonly done in abortions.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by jwharton »

Which is the greater sin?

Terminating a developing fetus prior to the time that it receives its first independent breath, which is when it becomes a living soul?

Or,

Going through with having a child you don't want and then raising it with a spirit of resentment and obligation that will injure its soul?


The important point surrounding the issue of abortion is there are sins that should be addressed so that abortion isn't even an issue. This is a situation where we are squabbling over two heinous sins that are virtually indistinguishable in the damage they do in the eyes of God.

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Obrien »

I know we likely agree on the abortion issue. I was merely offering a suggestion to KMCopeland regarding enforcement of anti-abortion laws.

It is an all-or-nothing proposition for the child.

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Obrien »

jwharton wrote:Which is the greater sin?

Terminating a developing fetus prior to the time that it receives its first independent breath, which is when it becomes a living soul?

Or,

Going through with having a child you don't want and then raising it with a spirit of resentment and obligation that will injure its soul?


The important point surrounding the issue of abortion is there are sins that should be addressed so that abortion isn't even an issue. This is a situation where we are squabbling over two heinous sins that are virtually indistinguishable in the damage they do in the eyes of God.
Where does the voluntary, illicit sexual activity that is the precursor of many "convenience abortions" fall on the "greater sin" scale? It seems to me you're ignoring the real issue.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Thinker »

jwharton wrote:Which is the greater sin?

Terminating a developing fetus prior to the time that it receives its first independent breath, which is when it becomes a living soul?

Or,

Going through with having a child you don't want and then raising it with a spirit of resentment and obligation that will injure its soul?


The important point surrounding the issue of abortion is there are sins that should be addressed so that abortion isn't even an issue. This is a situation where we are squabbling over two heinous sins that are virtually indistinguishable in the damage they do in the eyes of God.
Logical Fallacy.
You're assuming something you cannot prove because it is hypothetical and such children aborted/killed will never know how they would fair.
There was a study I read that addressed this issue - and found that
1) Many women having abortions are educated and well-off, and go on to raise other children well, without killing them.
2) Many people have considered abortion or accidentally got pregnant (unintended pregnancy) - yet raised children well still.

If a child is alive, he or she should not be killed - I don't care if you try to reason that the sky is falling.
That child has a beating heart that should not be stopped. This child should not have his/her body ripped apart, simply because 2 adults were horny and forgot birth control. How would you like to be killed because of that?

It would help if before people assumed things they did not know for sure, that they would educate themselves and then they seek the spirit along with their reasoning to be more successful in the most significant battles - between principles.

Silent Scream - obviously this child (12 weeks gestation) feels the pain of his body being ripped apart in this abortion
http://wn.com/silent_scream_part_2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Open thy mouth for the dumb (those with no voice) in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction."-Proverbs 31:8
Last edited by Thinker on March 24th, 2015, 1:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Fiannan »

jwharton wrote:Which is the greater sin?

Terminating a developing fetus prior to the time that it receives its first independent breath, which is when it becomes a living soul?

Or,

Going through with having a child you don't want and then raising it with a spirit of resentment and obligation that will injure its soul?


The important point surrounding the issue of abortion is there are sins that should be addressed so that abortion isn't even an issue. This is a situation where we are squabbling over two heinous sins that are virtually indistinguishable in the damage they do in the eyes of God.
Where is it said that taking a breath is when you get a soul? You can do operations on children still in the womb, you can measure brainwave activity and learning processes in a child still in the womb, infants still in the womb react to the environment, play with parts of their body (won't mention that in too much detail) and feel pain. So how is taking oxygen via the lungs any different than receiving oxygen via the umbilical cord? It is still respiration.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Thinker »

Obrien wrote:I know we likely agree on the abortion issue. I was merely offering a suggestion to KMCopeland regarding enforcement of anti-abortion laws.

It is an all-or-nothing proposition for the child.
I know, and I think we mostly agree on this.
I was mostly addressing KMcopeland's comments.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by KMCopeland »

Obrien wrote:
KMCopeland wrote:
Obrien wrote:The unborn don't have parades and demand rights in public housing, transportation and employment.
I think abortion is a horrible thing. I think widespread, thoughtless abortion is even worse. But can you help me understand how, if it were to be made illegal again, how that law would be enforced?
KMC - I have started to reply to your question numerous times, and deleted every draft. I always end up stating my personal philosophy and NOT answering your question.

Laws can only be enforced in two ways - by persuasion or by force. If a segment of the population (both male and female) are hard hearted enough to kill their own children, I'm not sure how to enforce such a law on them. I suppose abortion could be made a capital crime. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're willing to pay a doctor to tear your own child apart with surgical instruments, obviously you don't think that's cruel or unusual. Perhaps if we tore a few adults to pieces in the town square (and I don't mean women here only, but the men who helped cause "the problem", and the abortionist, too) people would be willing to revisit their concepts of cruel and unusual punishment and the efficacy of abortion to solve "their problem".

Just a thought...
Thanks Obrien. You're the first person I've asked that, who made a sincere run at a rational answer.

Here's what I think.

There are probably valid medical reasons to terminate a small percentage of pregnancies, meaning the pregnancy in question would either kill the mother or the baby or both. Any deeper than that into a medical rationale for abortion I am just not qualified to go.

But this much I know: God has tasked women with the job of bringing babies into the world. With shepherding them, within their mortal bodies, from conception to birth. It's an awesome amount of trust, and responsibility. I assume He has good reasons for trusting them with it. If they decide, for purely selfish reasons, to put an end to that process once it's begun, I believe it is a terrible thing -- but a matter between the woman and God. She is answerable to Him for her decision. Not me, and not anyone else except the child's father. And I think there is divine brilliance in that, because there is truly no good answer to the question, "Once we make abortion illegal again, how do we enforce that law?"

Neither the size, the cost, or the power of a government that can enforce laws against abortion are acceptable, but most objectionable is the amount of power you'd be giving the government. The amount of power you give government when you give it the power to enforce a law against abortion is not only massive, and costly, it's the same amount of power needed to require abortion. It is an amount of power no government should have.

I know it's the liberal position that it is a choice between a woman and her doctor and I wish that wasn't such a stumbling block for so many conservatives, but I believe it's the only possible position to take -- assuming we all honestly, and soberly take into account how to actually turn the positions we hold into reality, in this mortal life.

I don't know how you, in particular, feel about the size of government, or the amount of government control over people's daily lives. But I always find it interesting how often the people who object the most to the slightest amount of government infringement on our lives, are often the ones making the most noise about making abortion illegal. They're calling for a level of government interference they are supposedly rigidly opposed to, not to mention the enforcement apparatus which would have to be invented, and funded, thus making government bigger, and more costly as well -- two more things they are opposed to.

I vote for trusting Heavenly Father to deal with that decision, if and when it's made unrighteously, and accepting that it's not a decision, however much we disapprove of it, that we can plausibly interfere with, in this life.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by KMCopeland »

Fiannan wrote:Marktheshark, if these issues are so important then why did the Church not support it until now?

Look, I believe that the LDS Church is the most correct on earth, however,that does not mean I agree with every administrative issue that comes out. What I do get uncomfortable with is that it uses its influence to force legislators who have been raised in the LDS faith to totally forsake what they know to be correct and vote for the legislation. In regards to abortion v. homosexuality I believe that abortion is a far worse action to engage in than homosexuality. If I were single and the gal I was dating admitted to me she had been in a lesbian relationship I would merely reply with a "whatever" while if she said she had done an elective abortion I would break up with her then and there. In fact, if my wife were to have a fling with a woman I would be angry over the betrayal but I would forgive really fast; if she said she had undergone an abortion of a child of mine I would be looking for a good lawyer.
You are obsessed with lesbians.

Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2536

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Bee Prepared »

KMCopeland wrote:
EPH wrote:My husband was selected by the church to be part of opinion polling surveys. His last one he submitted was just after Kate Kelly's excommunication. I assume they are done with him since it has been awhile since they've sent him a survey. One of the surveys was quite focused on this issue. I don't remember the questions exactly but mostly were about how one felt about the church getting involved in Utah politics. Other surveys focused on gay marriage. Feelings about recent excommunications and feelings about moving to a 2 hour block. I get frustrated when opinion polling is used or pilot programs and we all jump and call changes revelation.
My goodness. I suppose tithing money pays for those polls & surveys too.
Haha! Good one...

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Fiannan »

KMCopeland wrote:
Fiannan wrote:Marktheshark, if these issues are so important then why did the Church not support it until now?

Look, I believe that the LDS Church is the most correct on earth, however,that does not mean I agree with every administrative issue that comes out. What I do get uncomfortable with is that it uses its influence to force legislators who have been raised in the LDS faith to totally forsake what they know to be correct and vote for the legislation. In regards to abortion v. homosexuality I believe that abortion is a far worse action to engage in than homosexuality. If I were single and the gal I was dating admitted to me she had been in a lesbian relationship I would merely reply with a "whatever" while if she said she had done an elective abortion I would break up with her then and there. In fact, if my wife were to have a fling with a woman I would be angry over the betrayal but I would forgive really fast; if she said she had undergone an abortion of a child of mine I would be looking for a good lawyer.
You are obsessed with lesbians.
Yeah, you can believe that if you wish. Then again you might consider that in the circle I tend to be in I know a lot of pansexuals, bi and lesbian women, and a few gay men. If you have a problem with that then that is your problem, isn't it?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Fiannan »

Neither the size, the cost, or the power of a government that can enforce laws against abortion are acceptable, but most objectionable is the amount of power you'd be giving the government. The amount of power you give government when you give it the power to enforce a law against abortion is not only massive, and costly, it's the same amount of power needed to require abortion. It is an amount of power no government should have.
You can say that with a straight face I assume? You kinda forget that prior to 1973 most states had laws against abortion and prior to around 1967 all states had laws against it. Do you believe the government under, I don't know JFK was fascist while the government under The One is democratic? If so you need to think in reversed terms.

Bee Prepared
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2536

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Bee Prepared »

KMCopeland wrote:
Fiannan wrote:Marktheshark, if these issues are so important then why did the Church not support it until now?

Look, I believe that the LDS Church is the most correct on earth, however,that does not mean I agree with every administrative issue that comes out. What I do get uncomfortable with is that it uses its influence to force legislators who have been raised in the LDS faith to totally forsake what they know to be correct and vote for the legislation. In regards to abortion v. homosexuality I believe that abortion is a far worse action to engage in than homosexuality. If I were single and the gal I was dating admitted to me she had been in a lesbian relationship I would merely reply with a "whatever" while if she said she had done an elective abortion I would break up with her then and there. In fact, if my wife were to have a fling with a woman I would be angry over the betrayal but I would forgive really fast; if she said she had undergone an abortion of a child of mine I would be looking for a good lawyer.
You are obsessed with lesbians.
LOL, another good one KMC!

If I dated a man who revealed to me he had been in a homosexual relationship, I definitely ask " Fiannan" for his advice on the matter. :))

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Fiannan »

Bee, I'd just suggest you two could rent "Brokeback Mountain" for movie night. :D

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by jwharton »

I suppose picking apart the question is also an option you are free to take....

User avatar
Obrien
Up, up and away.
Posts: 4951

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by Obrien »

KMCopeland wrote:
Obrien wrote:The unborn don't have parades and demand rights in public housing, transportation and employment.
KMCopeland wrote:I think abortion is a horrible thing. I think widespread, thoughtless abortion is even worse. But can you help me understand how, if it were to be made illegal again, how that law would be enforced?
Obrien wrote:KMC - I have started to reply to your question numerous times, and deleted every draft. I always end up stating my personal philosophy and NOT answering your question.

Laws can only be enforced in two ways - by persuasion or by force. If a segment of the population (both male and female) are hard hearted enough to kill their own children, I'm not sure how to enforce such a law on them. I suppose abortion could be made a capital crime. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're willing to pay a doctor to tear your own child apart with surgical instruments, obviously you don't think that's cruel or unusual. Perhaps if we tore a few adults to pieces in the town square (and I don't mean women here only, but the men who helped cause "the problem", and the abortionist, too) people would be willing to revisit their concepts of cruel and unusual punishment and the efficacy of abortion to solve "their problem".

Just a thought...
Thanks Obrien. You're the first person I've asked that, who made a sincere run at a rational answer.
You're Welcome.

Here's what I think.

There are probably valid medical reasons to terminate a small percentage of pregnancies, meaning the pregnancy in question would either kill the mother or the baby or both. Any deeper than that into a medical rationale for abortion I am just not qualified to go.
Agreed. I am not a medical doctor either. Thinker noted (above) 3% of pregnancies is a reasonable guess. I accept that - do you accept it for the sake of discussion?

But this much I know: God has tasked women with the job of bringing babies into the world. With shepherding them, within their mortal bodies, from conception to birth. It's an awesome amount of trust, and responsibility. I assume He has good reasons for trusting them with it. If they decide, for purely selfish reasons, to put an end to that process once it's begun, I believe it is a terrible thing -- but a matter between the woman and God. She is answerable to Him for her decision. Not me, and not anyone else except the child's father. And I think there is divine brilliance in that, because there is truly no good answer to the question, "Once we make abortion illegal again, how do we enforce that law?"
God has tasked women AND men with the task of life creation. Both parties ought to be involved in the conception, rearing, protection and nurture of the child. Everyone has their agency to fulfill their responsibilities in the creation and sustaining of life. With my children, I beat the abstinence drum as a sure method to prevent having to make these kinds of decisions. Yes, I believe we are answerable to God, our partner and the child for what we do in relation to a pregnancy.
Law should serve to create a framework of acceptable behaviour in society. Laws in a Christian nation should be an outgrowth of basic Christian morals - one of which is the sanctity of life. As I intimated in my original reply to your question (without even any tongue-in-cheekiness), one of the few legitimate uses of governmental power is to enforce laws that derive from Natural Law. An eye for an eye does have the dual benefit of punishment and deterrence, but it does nothing for restitution, forgiveness and love. I realize my thinking is hopelessly mired in the concepts and mores of Christianity, but that's what I am.


Neither the size, the cost, or the power of a government that can enforce laws against abortion are acceptable, but most objectionable is the amount of power you'd be giving the government. The amount of power you give government when you give it the power to enforce a law against abortion is not only massive, and costly, it's the same amount of power needed to require abortion. It is an amount of power no government should have.
For better or worse (usually worse), governments historically have exercised power over life and death. It wouldn't take many public executions by dismemberment to drastically reduce the number of "legal" abortions. Exercising this repugnant power to protect an innocent child is one of the least objectionable reasons to use it, IMO. Upon implementation of my modest proposal, many doctors would likely weigh out the cost / risk and decide to stop performing abortions, resulting in a net benefit to society.

I know it's the liberal position that it is a choice between a woman and her doctor and I wish that wasn't such a stumbling block for so many conservatives, but I believe it's the only possible position to take -- assuming we all honestly, and soberly take into account how to actually turn the positions we hold into reality, in this mortal life.
Disagree - I believe we should take responsibility for our choices, both pre and post coitus, and not look for an escape hatch through which to jettison the result of our choices. We should seek to LIVE in accordance with the higher morals we ASPIRE to, not lower our behaviour to match our worst moral choices

I don't know how you, in particular, feel about the size of government, or the amount of government control over people's daily lives. But I always find it interesting how often the people who object the most to the slightest amount of government infringement on our lives, are often the ones making the most noise about making abortion illegal. They're calling for a level of government interference they are supposedly rigidly opposed to, not to mention the enforcement apparatus which would have to be invented, and funded, thus making government bigger, and more costly as well -- two more things they are opposed to.
I see a keen difference in Federal government power and State government power. The Federal government should be strictly limited to acting on their enumerated powers as defined in the US Constitution. I say the limitations on their power should be many and redundant. States ought to have the ability to make laws as seem good to them, subject to the will of the people. Government is best that governs least, but a morally weak people will tolerate and eventually embrace a more powerful and intrusive government. I hate big government. I hate taxes. I hate deficit spending. I hate a swarm of officers sent out to "help" me figure out how to live my life. I hate a nanny neighbor, town, county, state and a nanny nation. I hate abject dependence on others. I hate indolence, sloth and dishonesty. I hate corporations. Most (but not all) of the things I hate become much more abundant the more you move "left" on the political scale. Sorry, let me get off my soapbox...

I vote for trusting Heavenly Father to deal with that decision, if and when it's made unrighteously, and accepting that it's not a decision, however much we disapprove of it, that we can plausibly interfere with, in this life.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by KMCopeland »

lundbaek wrote:I think if one were to read "The Proper Role Of Government" in the 1968 conference address ( http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1636" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) it should be pretty clear what our political persuasions should be.
It will only be clear if you only read what Elder Benson said they should be. Many other General Authorities said he was wrong. Should we ignore the rest of them?

I know you admire Elder Benson lundbaek. I do too. But how can you pick out just one General Authority, and take only his views to heart, especially when there are so many General Authorities who not only disagree with him, but who chastised him over and over for preaching his far right wing politics in his capacity as a General Authority, including the First Presidency?

Yes, in his "Proper Role of Government" talk in Conference in 1968, he described US government "welfare-state programs" as a "Communist planned program of deception." And when an LDS director of a government welfare program in Provo asked the First Presidency about it, he was told: “Be assured of this, that what this man said does not represent the position of the Church with respect to the subject of government aid, etc.” and emphasized that Benson’s “statements do not represent the church.”

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

Post by KMCopeland »

Fiannan wrote:
KMCopeland wrote:Neither the size, the cost, or the power of a government that can enforce laws against abortion are acceptable, but most objectionable is the amount of power you'd be giving the government. The amount of power you give government when you give it the power to enforce a law against abortion is not only massive, and costly, it's the same amount of power needed to require abortion. It is an amount of power no government should have.
Fiannan wrote:You can say that with a straight face I assume?
I sure can.
Fiannan wrote:You kinda forget that prior to 1973 most states had laws against abortion and prior to around 1967 all states had laws against it.
It's 2015. It's possible things have changed -- oh wait -- they have. Conservatives have this idea that we can somehow turn the world back into Leave It To Beaverland. Truthfully, I'd love it if we could. We can't. Face it.

Abortion has been around since Old Testament times. In the days, in this country, when it was illegal, it was still practiced, and a lot of women died or were rendered permanently unable to have children by back room abortions. You have got to understand something: there will be no going back on this. Legal, safe, abortion is not going away. And remember: just because the rest of the world approves of something doesn't mean you have to, and the fact that you disapprove of it does not mean it must be legislated accordingly to your disapproval. It would be nice -- it's not going to happen. Many things are legal that are wrong, and many things are illegal that are right. I can live by a higher law. I can teach my daughters and anybody else I care about how I feel about this. Can't you?

This hue and cry for legislation to re-criminalize abortion is a complete waste of time. Be glad your government doesn't have the power to coerce abortion any more than it has the power to prevent it, live according to the principles you set for yourself even if (especially if) they are higher than the world around you. And save your political strength for a battle you have a chance of winning.
Fiannan wrote:Do you believe the government under, I don't know JFK was fascist while the government under The One is democratic? If so you need to think in reversed terms.
Where you do come up with these questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about. That's what I'd like to know.

Post Reply