Abortion Split from: "What the [LDS] church misrepresented in the AP article response"

[MG 2.0]

Millions of babies killed.

Fetus is the English word for a human that has not been born. Killing babies is not abortion, and abortion is not killing babies. By definition.

Killing a fetus is killing what would have become a child when out of the womb.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

If you were able to keep a fetus alive to term which otherwise wouldn’t survive would you do what you could to do so? If you refused to help and it died would that be immoral?

We have a grandchild who spent weeks in NICU. I am grateful to hold this child in my arms. Yes to the first question.

In the case of those that cared for our granddaughter I would answer yes. But I wasn't concerned about that at all.

My concern is with the almost astronomical number of elective abortions that have occurred over the years and the apparent tone deafness that many, such as yourself, seem to be afflicted with.

Shout bloody murder in one instance. Deaf and dumb when it comes to something that has become a political hot potato.

I simply wanted to bring this interesting contradiction, at least I believe it is, to our attention.

For whatever it's worth.

Regards,
MG

As doctor steuss also point out this isn’t a contradiction. It’s not comparing like things. But I see you have just implicated god as the most immoral ever since he would now be the greatest offender of abortions ever. Or do you give him a pass?

[drumdude]

Fetus is the English word for a human that has not been born. Killing babies is not abortion, and abortion is not killing babies. By definition.

Killing a fetus is killing what would have become a child when out of the womb.

Regards,
MG

And wearing a condom is killing what would have become a child if I had gone without.

The law is not concerned with "what would have happened" or else you and I and everyone else who is sexually capable would be guilty of the murder of millions ourselves.

[Dr Exiled]

I don't think there are any exceptions wherein raping someone is permissible. That is one of the reasons I don't think these two things are morally equivalent. Because they aren't morally equivalent, holding to one, but not the other, isn't hypocrisy to me.

Since you insist on making these two things morally equivalent, and see adhering to one but not the other as a sign of hypocrisy: What circumstances do you feel make raping someone permissible?

Never.

In what circumstances do you feel abortions of a fetus and/or child carried to almost full term is permissible. That is, after the obvious ones are listed. Life of the mother, rape, and a few other instances where an abortion may be necessary.

Elective abortions for example? Abortions where the man wants the woman to get an abortion (fairly common).

All I'm saying is that I believe there is a cone of silence separating us in regards to child rape/abuse and abortions.

I won't belabor the point unless you want to.

Abortions are an abomination. Millions of babies killed.

Where is the outrage?

Regards,
MG

Nice try to divert the attention away from the topic at hand. The Church is still in the wrong. The leaders have been and continue to make big mistakes here, mistakes that you don't want to acknowledge (hence the diversion attempt) or try to justify somehow.

Incidentally, whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy and a subtype of the ad-hominem. But you already know this.

[dastardly stem]

My concern is with the almost astronomical number of elective abortions that have occurred over the years and the apparent tone deafness that many, such as yourself, seem to be afflicted with.

If you believe in god all abortions are elective. He chose that they’d be killed. Are you saying he can’t tell what causes an abortion and can’t stop it?

[dastardly stem]

Also, MG, what about the abortions that god condones when a woman seeks him, prays to him and receives an answer from him to abort?

[drumdude]

Also, MG, what about the abortions that god condones when a woman seeks him, prays to him and receives an answer from him to abort?

That's her own pride getting in the way of TRUE personal revelation. It's completely different than when Joseph received a revelation to shag a 14 year old in the barn, mind you.

[Marcus]

[derailment attempt removed]

Nice try to divert the attention away from the topic at hand. The Church is still in the wrong. The leaders have been and continue to make big mistakes here, mistakes that you don't want to acknowledge (hence the diversion attempt) or try to justify somehow.

Incidentally, whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy and a subtype of the ad-hominem. But you already know this.

Yes, I’m sure he does. His derailment has now taken up parts of more than 4 pages. If people want to continue, as the OP I would appreciate it if someone started a separate thread. When the mods are available I’ll ask them to split this one.

MG: If you want to talk about this, please start a new thread.

Please.

[MG 2.0]

MG: If you want to talk about this, please start a new thread.

Please.

I think I’ve seen/heard pretty much what I expected. Now it’s on record.

I’m done for now.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Nice try to divert the attention away from the topic at hand. The Church is still in the wrong. The leaders have been and continue to make big mistakes here, mistakes that you don't want to acknowledge (hence the diversion attempt) or try to justify somehow.

Incidentally, whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy and a subtype of the ad-hominem. But you already know this.