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

[MG 2.0]

How many here that are supportive of elective abortions felt differently back in the day?

The days before you lost your faith?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Has this exercise been worth the derail?

I think the stark difference in emphasis between the objects of virtue signaling needs to be pointed out.

Health and welfare of children in one instance, but not in another.

Regards,
MG

So your issue is that you think it’s ‘virtue signaling’ to have issues with the way the LDS church handles child abuse, and because there is not corresponding ‘virtue signaling’ about abortion by the same people, the child abuse ‘virtue signaling’ is over-emphasized?

Putting aside your argument (which is offensive), the fact that you reduce opinions about either issue to ‘virtue signaling’ is wholly inappropriate. It’s significant that the only person defining these issues in the context of ‘virtue signaling’ is you.

[MG 2.0]

I think the stark difference in emphasis between the objects of virtue signaling needs to be pointed out.

Health and welfare of children in one instance, but not in another.

Regards,
MG

So your issue is that you think it’s ‘virtue signaling’ to have issues with the way the LDS church handles child abuse, and because there is not corresponding ‘virtue signaling’ about abortion by the same people, the child abuse ‘virtue signaling’ is over-emphasized?

Putting aside your argument (which is offensive), the fact that you reduce opinions about either issue to ‘virtue signaling’ is wholly inappropriate. It’s significant that the only person defining these issues in the context of ‘virtue signaling’ is you.

I stand by what I have said. You are simply trying to avoid any responsibility for having to defend abortion.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

You have purposefully been avoiding the real issue(s) throughout this conversation. You know it. I know it.

Really? What is the real issue? You don't like abortion? or you think those who aren't dogmatically opposed to abortion or aren't being sufficiently loud enough to oppose abortion are doing something bad? I mean I"m pretty sure everyone agrees your distraction in hopes to make everyone look inconsistent failed. So aside from that failure what was the point?

Let’s stop playing semantical games.

I've made points and asked questions. You've avoided answering questions and have evaded my points. There are no semantical games involved in that.

You are supportive of elective abortions. The annihilation of potential life while in the womb for the convenience of the mother/father.

I haven't said for what reason I support a woman's right to choose. I've said nothing about convenience. But, I suppose if you are simply trying to virtue signal, I get the need to put words in my mouth, misrepresent what I've done here and avoid any attempt at a conversation on the matter. All you really intended was to play a game of virtue signal-ling, or something? Ok. Not sure who you hope to signal in this.

The ultimate example of selfishness.

Regards,
MG

No...that's believing in God.

[Doctor Steuss]

If concern for health and mental wellbeing is truly at heart, the choice is pretty clear.

Health and mental well being of the woman/man choosing abortion or the health and well being of the potential human life growing within the womb?

The argument is between WHO deserves priority. The one who chose to get pregnant and doesn’t want the responsibility of carrying a child to term or the developing boy or girl in the womb that has no voice/choice.

Regards,
MG

If a woman's life is at risk because of a pregnancy, should the "voice/choice" of a developing fetus -- that cannot feel pain, is incapable of forming/having memories, and has no emotions or self-awareness -- take priority over the woman? If a woman and man decide to preserve the life of the woman, by terminating the pregnancy of a fetus that will never fully develop, or survive; are they failing to give priority to the "child"? There's rarely 100% certainty in risk of life, making most medically necessary abortions "elective" (since we're abandoning the meaning of words).

Almost everyone, except for the most ardent extremists, are willing to cross the line of "sanctity of life" when it comes to pregnancy. It's just a matter of where they are willing to cross that line. I don't think you'd endanger the life of your wife or daughter (if you had to make the emergency decision) because you felt the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy, even though it would never survive past about 13 weeks of gestation, deserved priority.

The situation reminds me of something LeGrand Richards supposedly said to my grandfather during one of their drives (that somewhat mirrors a sticker that Dieter Uchtdorf saw, and incorporated into a conference talk about a decade ago):

We judge harshly the sin that has enough difference to not match our own.

[sock puppet]

I'd agree Sock Puppet gave us great information which I think pretty much renders your position moot, for the most part. And yet another thread goes away in which MG refuses to answer questions or really respond to an argument people have made. But if you will consider once more:

Do you agree that on this topic we might not really know what God wants? It sounds to me you are certain about your position on abortion but aren't sure what God is thinking...correct?

I think I’ve already made it clear but I’ll repeat. I trust God. I trust the plan that I believe he enacted for his children. That plan requires agency and the role of nature in the world. In the natural world spontaneous abortions/stillbirths will occur. There are failsafes to take care of inequalities and inequities that naturally occur.

To accuse God, however, of an evil that runs against his nature is a dead end.

On the other hand God enacted the powers of procreation and shared these powers with mankind and also commanded the animal kingdom and other forms of life to reproduce.

If people choose to purposefully disregard God’s commands given to Adam and Eve they are in opposition to God’s command to multiply and replenish the earth.

Granted, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.

This is nature’s way of providing for a majority viable births with fewer problems.

But for women/men to take that option/decision and choose to electively abort potential healthy babies that are the end result of a pregnancy is a great evil. Millions of potential human beings have been destroyed by the agency of those who make this choice rather than the more difficult choice of bringing a child into the world.

There will be a difference of opinion between religionists and those that either live a hedonistic lifestyle and/or believe there is no accountability to a God when aborting a fetus through their own choices made out of convenience.

It’s one thing for nature to take its course, it’s another for man/womankind to play God.

All of the rationalization in the world doesn’t change that.

Regards,
MG

Are you horrified that God "plays God" and through nature, of which God is according to theists, the author of nature, kills more blastocysts, embryos and fetuses (which we call miscarriages)?