Friday, February 09, 2007

Choice, Pt III

Cameron's rply to Choice, Pt III:

I was assuming you were talking about abortion when you wrote about choice in a "human's reproductive system." I stand by my point that choosing which school to go to is far different than choosing to end another person's life.

I believe the scripture you quote is referring to a person's choice in regards to personal salvation. Life meaning eternal life, death meaning being seperated from the presence of God.

But let's be clear as to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stance is on abortion:

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Actually, Cameron, when I used the term "human's reproductive system" I referred to not only Abortion (and to abortion in a small degree) but also to all matters relating to sex. I would go into further detail, but Sen Buttars might try to outlaw blogging next year if I do.

So, we'll stick to the Abortion topic.

Yes, I, too believe that Abortion is abhorrent and wrong. And yes, people who choose to have elective abortions should loose their church membership.

However, here in Utah, most abortion bills outlaw ALL abortions, including those "when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

Also, the key to ending abortions is not to outlaw them. Abortions happened prior to Roe v Wade, and they will happen after Doe v Utah. What we need to do is reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and boost resources to make it easier for women to give their babies up for adoption.

Being "Pro Choice" does not make me "Pro Abrtion" just like being "Anti Abortion" does not make someone "Pro Life."

Lastly, on choice. I believe that before we came to this Earth, we were given a choice between two plans. We could come here, not be able to do anything wrong, and everyone would be saved. Or, we could come down here, learn the difference between good and evil, and choose the good, thereby growing in the process. We opted for the ability to choose and grow. However, the way the Utah Legislature acts runs contrary to this belief. They would have a situation whereby everyone can choose good and nothing else, by outlawing everything that they consider a "sin." This is a dangerous path to start down.


P.S. Thanks for the debate. Also, I like your blog.


Jennifer Killpack-Knutsen said...


You are the only other blogger (other than myself) that sees the Utah legislature as hypocrisy on the concept of free will, although we would probably disagree on all the other aspects of that particular issue.


Shaun said...

They would have a situation whereby everyone can choose good and nothing else, by outlawing everything that they consider a "sin." This is a dangerous path to start down.

That sound like a mighty familiar line of reasoning...

I would defend another persons ability to choose to do something reprehensible because that preserves for me the ability to choose freely myself.

Mind! I do not believe we should allow people to harm other people, but there are already statutes in place to punish murder, assault, and other forms of harrasment.

Note that I said punish instead of protect against. You can only punish when someone has done something. Protecting against crime involves speculation about what crime could be commited.

It's like saying that I should be charged for murder because you speculate that I could hit someone with my car while exceeding the speed limit.

Until it happens it's only a probabilistic liability which is impossible to calculate accuratly.

If abortion were legal someone MIGHT have one...

However, they WILL have to live with the decision.

Cameron said...

Why do you believe abortion is "abhorrent and wrong"? Is it only because you are a superstition-believing Mormon, and whatever the Church says is cosmic truth, as Jen has suggested to me?

Or is there something more?

I understand that choice is good. Choice is necessary. But it's not an all or nothing proposition, both in theological terms as well as the secular.

God may have given you free agency, but he also gave you commandments. Those laws don't deny you your agency any more than secular laws do.

Murders are against the law, but they still happen. Stealing is against the law, but it still happens. That's not a good enough reason to make them legal.

Allie said...

It's interesting to think about being pro-choice and anti-abortion. I'm not sure where I fit in there yet. I've always felt like I couldn't say I was pro-choice or pro-life. (that's why I just say pro-responsibility).

The thing that I have been thinking about lately, and I might just make a post on my blog about it, is that people use the killing a life argument, but they want to include the exceptions for health and life of the mother and rape and incest. A life is a life no matter how it was created, so being against abortion based on the "killing life" exception doesn't make sense to me.

I believe that Heavenly Father will work things out and that an aborted fetus has not lost its "chance" for a body. That doesn't mean that I think anyone should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control.

I think we have to learn to be responsible with out bodies and the choices we make. We know what can happen when we have sex, so to be responsible, we use some form of birth control if we don't want to have children, but we go into knowing that having sex can lead to pregnancy so we must take responsibility for the results of our choice.

I know that if I touch a hot oven I will be burned, so it would be irresponsible of me to not use a hot pad to take something out of that oven. I have to be careful to avoid the undesirable consequence.

I think women should choose to be responsible (although I realize that some people veiw abortion as a responsible choice).

Anyway, so back to the "sin" issue, it seems like the sin is not so much a murder issue as it is a responsibility issue.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen :
The Manipulation of ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome’: Part Two: by Marcy Bloom ?
comments are also a good read.