LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[I Have Questions]

In a staggering abuse of donations, and in an attempt to foist Mormon stipulations on non Mormons…

Less than a month before the November general election, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has donated $1 million to the campaign opposing Idaho’s Proposition 1.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ld ... r-AA2dUOt0

EastIdahoNews.com confirmed this donation through LDS church officials, who issued the following statement:

“While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains neutral toward political candidates, it actively addresses ballot initiatives it believes carry significant moral consequences. Accordingly, the Church has joined a coalition of like-minded organizations and individuals in Idaho to dedicate resources toward defeating Proposition 1.”

You will note the subtle shift from a message that the church stays out of politics, to one now saying it just doesn’t indicate a specific candidate preference in elections.

Is the LDS Church now just a PAC?

[MG 2.0]

MG's response:

The church has staked out a position this matter:

Latter-day Saint leaders have emphasized that the church’s position on abortion “remains clear and unchanged.”

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life,” according to a statement on its official website. “Therefore, the church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for or arrange for such abortions.”

The church opposes abortion with possible exceptions for when:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

More information can be found here:
https://www.deseret.com/
Search: Idaho

In my opinion the church is doing the right thing by making it's voice heard in regards to one of the most important moral issues/battles of our times. The right to life of the unborn.

Opponents of the bill take issue with the bills language concerning the Fetal Viability Standard being used and the Parental Consent standards.

I suppose it might be helpful for folks to read the bill and then determine whether or not the bill favors life of the fetus/baby or the elective decisions of the pregnant woman. That, of course, will be an individual matter to resolve.

We now know where the church stands and they are putting their money where there mouth is.

Good for them.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you’re celebrating the Mormon Church spending $1M to defeat Prop 1, you should at least be honest about what the proposition actually does:

1) It restores women’s natural right to their bodies and gives doctors more freedom to make medical decisions during pregnancy, including allowing abortion before viability and allowing it later when a serious medical emergency threatens the woman’s health.

2) It protects contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and other reproductive healthcare.

The government shouldn’t force a woman to remain pregnant when doing so puts her health at serious risk. If the Mormons want to spend a million dollars opposing that, that’s its political choice, but explain specifically which of those protections you think women shouldn’t have and why.

[MG 2.0]

If you’re celebrating the Mormon Church spending $1M to defeat Prop 1, you should at least be honest about what the proposition actually does:

1) It restores women’s natural right to their bodies and gives doctors more freedom to make medical decisions during pregnancy, including allowing abortion before viability and allowing it later when a serious medical emergency threatens the woman’s health.

2) It protects contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and other reproductive healthcare.

The government shouldn’t force a woman to remain pregnant when doing so puts her health at serious risk. If the Mormons want to spend a million dollars opposing that, that’s its political choice, but explain specifically which of those protections you think women shouldn’t have and why.

As I said earlier the argument has to do with the bills language concerning the Fetal Viability Standard being used and the Parental Consent standards.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pointing to the bill’s language doesn’t prove it’s wrong. Explain what’s wrong with the viability and parental consent standards and why.

[Kishkumen]

No one is forcing Mormons to get abortions.

Problem solved.

[MG 2.0]

No one is forcing Mormons to get abortions.

Problem solved.

Part of the problem, yes. There is still the larger problem of elective abortions and what the agreed upon standards will be for that procedure.

There has been a general tendency on the part of those that are '100% woman's right to choose' to minimize the harm (to say the least) done to the innocent victims that have no voice.

Literally. No voice...and never will.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Part of the problem, yes. There is still the larger problem of elective abortions and what the agreed upon standards will be for that procedure.

There has been a general tendency on the part of those that are '100% woman's right to choose' to minimize the harm (to say the least) done to the innocent victims that have no voice.

Literally. No voice...and never will.

Regards,
MG

I don't find this problematic at all. There was no problem. The crisis of casual, elective abortions never existed. It was something that was cynically manufactured by men who felt they needed to stir up a movement that would save their relevance and power over others. It is disgusting how many manipulative exploiters use "save the children" to con others. Lots of easy marks find that plea irresistible. It feels wrong to them even to question whether the claimed crisis exists. See the MAGA conspiracy theories about adrenochrome and Pizzagate. See Tim Ballard, the LDS con artist who allegedly pressured women into sex, as he pretended to "save the children." His work was being uncritically supported by thousands of well-meaning dupes.

I have run out of patience with these manipulators and cons. The anti-abortion movement, however sincerely supported by concerned, good-hearted people, is a cynical political fraud that is all about taking power away from women and handing it to men.

[MG 2.0]

Part of the problem, yes. There is still the larger problem of elective abortions and what the agreed upon standards will be for that procedure.

There has been a general tendency on the part of those that are '100% woman's right to choose' to minimize the harm (to say the least) done to the innocent victims that have no voice.

Literally. No voice...and never will.

Regards,
MG

I don't find this problematic at all.

On this particular bill have you looked at the Fetal Viability Standard being used and the Parental Consent standards in the bill? If so, do you think they are reasonable?

As I understand it the initiative says that the state may regulate or prohibit abortion after the point of fetal viability.

Also, the bill says that after viability, the state cannot ban or restrict an abortion if a physician determines in good faith that it is a "medical emergency"

Doesn't that open up a can of worms?

In this case do those that support "right to life" have reason to be concerned?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

MG,

Would you enjoy being subject to sharia law where you live? How do you know that following Sharia law won't bring you eternal reward, and is ultimately objectively moral?

Surely you can understand the concern about large powerful religious organizations imposing their subjective moral standards on non-members against their will. Especially when it affects the most personal space imaginable - one's own bodily autonomy.