Get to your foxholes... The Roe v. Wade war is on...
 

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

That didn't take long...

I have a feeling this is going to get really, really ugly...

This won't go anywhere.
 

South Dakota's law is patently unconstitutional. It will be struck down immediately, and I cannot see the Supreme Court even taking the issue up for review.

The Court may want to overturn Roe (though I really don't think they have the votes or the will to do so). Even assuming they do want to overturn Roe, this would be a dangerous vehicle to get them there. The Court loves its position of importance. It isn't about to de facto endorse the action of a state directly challenging its interpretation of the Constitution. If the Court wants to overturn Roe, they may do it, but they would do it in a case where an obvious constitutional question was at issue, not in a case where the Court has clearly resolved the issue already.

It may be unconstitutional, but I'm happy to see this happen.

Abortion is murder.

yeah ok....

Is it not?

theologically....nope....

philosophically.....nope....

Care to state why you feel that way, especially theologically?

I realize that the church recognizes conditions under which if the life of the mother is in danger that it's allowed, but that is one particular statement with which I disagree.

Others can make very good arguments about it being allowed if it from the result of a rape. Again, I disagree.

Abortion is, has been and will always be murder.

It brings no joy to my heart. I wish they'd left well enough alone. We have issues of more practical significance which either will be put on a back burner or will be ignored.

These hot issues really are more symbolic, than significant in our daily lives.

I thought meat was murder.

Given that the church allows abortion in some cases, hard to argue that they are choosing to allow "murder" in the case of rape/incest.

I can agree with this, though personally, I can't accept it. I suppose for me, this is no different than those who struggle to accept that there isn't any physical evidence of BoM civilizations.

To argue the "molly" point of view, the LDS church position (as far as I know) is that abortion is ok in cases of incest/rape after consultation with clergy, prayer, fasting, etc...

In a very black and white sense, you could argue that it is the Lord's decision.

There have been other cases where the Lord has chosen to take a life for the benefit of another.

I don't know where I come down on this, I'm just saying that I can see a logical mormon argument that abortion is murder.

thats an easy question to answer....

examine the difference in the process one must go through to be in good standing with the church when one kills someone and when one has an abortion.

i would even be comfortable in saying the church is more comfortable with abortion than killing someone in self defense.

the church allows abortions in certain examples, murder is never, ever acceptable....

and i believe when one murders someone instant disfellowship and excommunication follow.....when one has an abortion, it is to the discretion of a bishop the formal orders of the church.....

so if you believe the lds church is the lords mouth piece and has the keys to repentance, one only needs to examine how the church handles the two and one will see that the lord looks at murder and abortion much differently.....

btw i am not advocating abortion, nor am i saying its not a big deal, nor am i saying the lord endorses the practice...

I wonder if abortion is one of those practices that are allowed because of the times we live in-- similar to divorce. The Lord explicitly stated that divorce is not and never was part of God's plan, but was allowed by Moses because the people would not have been able to do without it.

I wonder if the concessions that are granted are mostly a result of the fact that abortion is so ingrained into modern day society. My suspicion is that if abortion were completely illegal, the church would not hesitate to support that stance.

As a principle, no killing "nor anything like unto it" is a pretty good guideline.

1- You've misused the word "endorses" here. To say that the punishment for one is less than the punishment for another is hardly a statement endorsing a practice.

2- The church's diciplinary practices are not that cut and dry. Circumstances are always considered. We're using the term murder too broadly. You can split hairs over degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc... I think a better word would be killing.

what am i missing here? do you think i wrote that i said the lord endorses abortion? thats so not what i wrote....

circumstances when killing is involved are hardly considered. except for examples of self defense the stance of the church is actually quite cut and dry. you kill someone, you are not part of our organization. contrast that with what happens to a woman when an abortion is performed and its easy to see the position of the church.....

abortion is not murder....

as for this idea that its possibly a social phenomenom, or that the church is not cut and dry, lets look at homosexuality. the church is completely black and white on the issue, no gay sex, no gay marriage, no gay partners, and if you have one of those, no lds church for you. the church has even gone so far as to issue public statements saying they support heterosexual marriages only. if the church is part of our moral compass, why has not the church issued formal statements concerning abortion? if it really was murder, would the church not take a stance and say, abortion is wrong and if you participate you are not part of us?

the Church has allowed baptisms of persons convicted of manslaughter and murder.

I don't imagine every member who may have killed somebody in a motor vehicle accident, even if gross negligence were deemed to have occurred, is excommunicated.

The days of cut and dried rules no longer exist.

The Church obviously does not view abortion as tantamount to murder, because although membership is threatened by participating, it's not automatic, and it's on a case by case basis.

So its better to let both the mother and baby die then have an abortion to a least save the mother?

Sorry... I wasn't reading carefully. I'm supposed to be paying attention in class.

What do you mean by "not a part of our organization?" No access to the temple? No access to meetings? No access to the sacrament? The standard applied to abortion is very similar to the standard applied in the case of killing someone. Contrary to what it sounds like you believe (I could be wrong) you can come back to being a member in full standing after having killed someone.

Again, you're interchanging murder with killing. Just as there are many things to consider when looking at a case of one person killing another, there are many things to consider when looking at the case of a woman "killing" her unborn child.

Again, what does "no lds church for you mean?" It's not like they're run out on a rail and told to never return. The church policy is actually quite the opposite.

They have to a certain extent. It's a question in the baptismal interview, temple recommend interview, etc...

One thing point where I think we disagree is this concept of "no church for you." That's simply not how it works. The church welcomes everyone to repent and "join the fold." Participation in certain ordinances may be suspended, but the church does not ask people to leave and not return.

Abortion may be distasteful, but it is not murder. A fetus is not a living human being. How can you kill something that is not technically alive?

Lots of technical jargon to be defined here.

living human being = ? Do we take the old trimester system? Do we look at the history of how early a fetus can be born and still survive?

not technically alive = ? Now we'll start splitting biology hairs.

I do not believe that the abortion question is a matter of biology and timing, it is a matter of intent and circumstance. Just as it is wrong to kill a man with "evil" intent, I believe it is wrong to kill a fetus with "evil" intent.

I think we are mixing the Mormon take on abortion with the U.S. Legal take on abortion. Never the twain shall meet.

It is all a matter of degree. Abortion is distasteful because it ends a potential life. The closer that potential is to being realized, the more distasteful it becomes. If you take the morning after pill a few hours after conception, that is obviously different than aborting a fetus a few hours before delivery. That is precisely why this is such a devisive issue -- everybody's idea of when it becomes TOO distasteful differs. But to call abortion murder is to confuse the issue. It is not murder.

The one problem you have legally with this declaration is, at some point, the law will recognize the fetus as viable. Example, if a pregnant mom is murdered, don't same states try the perp for a double murder?

Aborting a last trimester fetus may arise to the level of murder. I usually don't resort to those terms, but it may be legally inaccurate to state abortion is never murder.

I'm with you most of the way, but I also recognize that there is another point of view here. Murder is just one name for the crime of killing somebody. The title "murder" doesn't deal with the fact that somebody died, but why they did it.

In the simplest terms, "Murder" means they 1- killed somebody 2- meant to do it.

The argument some people make is that the real crime in murder is depriving someone of the life they might have lived.

This is why it doesn't matter in a murder trial that the victim could have died of cancer the next day or that the victim was terminally ill. It doesn't matter to us what might have happened naturally, it is the fact that someone interfered with nature and didn't allow it to take its course.

This is why people who kill an expecting mother are often tried with 2 counts of murder. Because the the murderer deprived the fetus of the life it might have lived.

Despite their inability to articulate this in rational terms, I believe this is what many of the pro-life people believe. It's not so much "murder" because it ended a life, but that it removed the possibility of future life.

Here we can jump into a LONG argument about the point at which there is a possibility of future life, but I'm not going there. It's too foggy for me... That's why I'm unclear on many abortion issues.

If you really want to be a purist, you'd have to take the catholic stance and say that even birth control is a sin (because every time a sperm enters the vagina there is a possibility of life).

Woah, am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that if your wife had an ectopic pregnancy you would find it wrong to abort? The way I'm reading this makes me think you'd have your wife bleed out before you'd end that kind of a pregnancy.

Fortunately, that situation will never arise for my wife and I, as we've both taken the necessary steps to prevent pregnancy, now that we have the four kids we both wanted.

I realize that I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but I decided long ago what my stance on abortion is. I feel that it is wrong. However, as long as it is legal, I won't deny him/her to make the decision to abort a pregnancy.

I still maintain that abortion is murder, as, IMO, it meets the criteria stated by dirty hippy Ute: someone kills someone and meant to do it.

Is someone now gonna go ahead and tell me that partial birth abortions aren't the ending of life either?

I've known several instances where babies were born premature and what do you know, they have fingers, toes, they breathe, they have bodies and....they are fine later on in life...but yet if they're not born pre-mature,,but yet aborted far into a pregnancy...someone please try and rationalize why that is not killing an innocent life.

Someone tell me how that is not killing.

The church also allows abortion where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. That exception is extremely subjective. To what degree of danger must the mother be in? Who decides if the degree of danger is sufficient? What is the rule if one physician says it is dangerous and another says it probably isn't?

There are a lot of blurry lines with abortion under LDS doctrine. Far too many to categorically state that abortion is murder. This is probably why you won't find a single quote from a member of the first presidency saying abortion is murder.

LDS theology also teaches that murder is an unpardonable sin. As you are probably aware, abortion is not unpardonable. Many people are baptized after they have had an abortion. I just don't see any theological basis for claiming what you are claiming here.

Not exactly... If you look really deep into it, the only "unpardonable" sin is to have your calling and election made sure and then kill somebody.

We could go into a very long theological thing about this (which I wouldn't mind) but the short point is... Simple murder is pardonable.

Define "pardonable."

Will they eventually be forgiven of their sin? Yes-- but one thousand years after beginning of the millenium. Murder will not forfeit salvation, but usually will result in the forfeiture of exaltation.

Good question... I don't know the answer. I assume Exaltation is still available to murderers because according to Matt 12:31 "the Atonement is effective for all who repent except for those who commit the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost." -Arthur R. Bassett, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” Ensign, Aug. 1994, 27

If "the Atonement is effective," does that not mean that exaltation is possible? I assume it's not just talking about resurrection here because ALL will be resurrected (even sons of perdition). So... if the Atonement is effective, is it not eternal and can't it cover any sin if the sinner fully repents? (I don't dispute the fact that "repenting fully" of murder is VERY hard to do).

I was taught (between naps in seminary) that "the unpardonable sin against the holy ghost" was to have received a personal revelation from God himself and deny it.

According to Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon...

"I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost;" My seminary teacher took that whole "receives" a bit further than just post-baptismal confirmation.

More King Follett...
"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy."

In short...
Unless you have received a personal visit from a member of the Godhead (wich usually happens only when your calling and election is made sure aka receive the more sure word of promise) you cannot "deny" that which you "know."

In other words, you have to KNOW it and then LIE and say it is untrue.

To take it a step further, it is my understanding that those who receive the more sure word of promise can still screw up (little things) and come back. The only way they can really knock themselves out is to have seen God and then go out and murder somebody.

The only case of this I know of is Cain.

I can dig into this more when I get home and have my "sticks" but if somebody can throw me a bone here I'd appreciate the help. My seminary teacher whipped out a bunch of stuff about anchors, etc...

It was a very long time ago and I was probably more concerned with how I could sneak out the back than with the lesson...

The sin against the Holy Ghost has always been a great intrest of mine. I've come to believe that you can be forgiven for it but will never choose to be. The sin is to just absolutly not want what God has to offer you. Its to choose darkness over light because the darkness is attractive to you.

JST MATTHEW 12: 37-38

37 Then came some of the Scribes and said unto him, Master, it is written that, Every sin shall be forgiven; but ye say, Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. And they asked him, saying, How can these things be?
38 And he said unto them, When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none; but when a man speaketh against the Holy Ghost, then he saith, I will return into my house from when I came out; and when he is come, he findeth him empty, swept and garnished; for the good spirit leaveth him unto himself

So is anyone going to respond my post?

I'm curious...those who support abortion rights, explain to me how a partial birth or late term abortion is NOT killing a human life.

Those in support of abortion don't seem interested in answering this question.

I'm not one of "those in support of abortion" but I'll bowl for the other team here for a second just to keep the game going...

The pro-choice camp bases their argument mostly on the common law.

The common definition of "life" is independant respiration and circulation. Until it is out, the cord is cut, and it is breathing on its own, it isn't a "human life" under the common law definition. Despite what the fetus "may" become or how we feel about it, the black letter law of our country does not recognize a fetus as a live human.

Ergo (I love using that word), you cannot kill that which is not alive.

I'm not asking about common law. I'm asking those who believe in abortion rights to explain to me how a late term or partial birth abortion is not killing?

A law does not make something truth.

You can't see the forrest because you're looking at the trees.

The common law got that way becaus that is what they believe. They believe it isn't alive until it is born. Therefore it isn't killing because it isn't alive.

You're making the mistake of assuming that they (people who defent late term abortion) share your belief about when "life" begins.

Actually that's not the case even a tiny bit.

But since that's their viewpoint you're showing forth,,,then maybe they can answer a question as to why a baby who can be born at 6-7 months along can live a long vibrant life....... But if it can be aborted and not be considered killing a human life?

Either way,,it leads back to my original question.

Who's on first?
Right...
No! What's the name of the guy who plays first base?
No... What's on second. Who's on first...

LOL......so does anyone who believes in abortion rights, including late term and partial birth abortions,,, care to answer my question BESIDES Hippie. ;)

partial birth abortions are about as common as normal lds girls living in utah, in their thirties.....

it happens so infrequently is virtually is a non-issue....

The problem with RvW and all that is that abortion isn't a political problem, it's a social symptom to a social problem. You can outlaw abortion, but you're not going to stop people from behaving irresponsibly with regards to procreation and dealing with the consequences of their actions. That's the real problem and you ain't gonna legislate that away.

Prohibitions don't seem to work well. Alcohol prohibition didn't exactly work out. We made drugs illegal in the 30's (20's? whatever) and look how well *that* turned out.

The thing is, the *real* issue is hardly divisive at all: people need to not get pregnant if they're not able to take responsibility for their actions. Most people I know who support abortion rights (obviously this isn't indicative of all people who are pro-abortion) would agree with this. This is the problem that needs to be acted on.

To me, the abortion debate is yet another red-herring around which the glorious two parties can rally their troops and make themselves feel important.

o