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

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

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).

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

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.

[il Padrino Ute]

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.

[RockyBalboa]

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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

Abortion is murder.

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.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

LDS theology also teaches that murder is an unpardonable sin.

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.

[All-American]

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.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by All-American

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...