"Above my paygrade"

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Noah, surely you're not trolling are you? Even the most ardent pro-choicers realize that abortion is an incredibly painful decision for most women, and that for most women it's best if the decision never needs to be made. Further, some feminists feel that the very prevalence of abortion is due in part to the fact that women's preventative care needs are not being met. They want to see the numbers drop due to improving quality of life of women of childbearing age. But I imagine you already knew all that.

This is the only aspect of Obama's abortion platform that I agree with him on: we all have a vested interest in reducing the need for abortions in this country, and if we work together toward that end we're a lot more likely to accomplish it than if the lifers and choicers just keep bickering all the time.

I think what myboynoah is trying to say is that when the issue is framed in terms of individual choice, then the politician has no right to criticize the choice. When Obama is saying that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, he's being critical of the choice that so many women have fought so hard to protect.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Noah, surely you're not trolling are you? Even the most ardent pro-choicers realize that abortion is an incredibly painful decision for most women, and that for most women it's best if the decision never needs to be made. Further, some feminists feel that the very prevalence of abortion is due in part to the fact that women's preventative care needs are not being met. They want to see the numbers drop due to improving quality of life of women of childbearing age. But I imagine you already knew all that.

Oh perhaps. So it is concern for the health of the woman, and not for the unborn. Well, at least that's consistent.

But I am curious about why, if it is not a human life, pro choice folks would even concern themselves with it. Why such pain in the process? I suspect they fully understand that there is something wrong with abortion. But I can only assume that something inside them overcomes that feeling, to the point that they don't even want to pass laws that would prevent the aborting of viable fetuses.

I wonder what it is inside them that influences them to move against their better instincts. Otherwise, why such a difficult decision?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Huh? Obama probably thinks that contraception, adoption, or a woman deciding to keep her baby are preferable to abortion. You disagree? You're not one of those guys that thinks birth control is the same thing as abortion, are you?

Just because you believe in the legal right to abortion doesn't mean you think abortion is a good thing. And for the record I am a Libertarian and I think abortion is evil and disgusting. Not sure how I got into this argument.

I was asking a general question to everyone, not specifically to you. I guess what you wrote generated my questions.

I just think this move to prevent abortions seems inconsistent with the pro choice agenda. If it's such an important issue that it was taken before the Supreme Court, what is wrong with it? Why fight so hard for an issue with which people seem to be so uncomfortable? Is abortion wrong? Or are we just concerned about the health of the women taking advantage of this right? Is it really that big of a health issue that Obama now wants us to decrease the number?

Or is the elephant in the room the unborn, viable child? And nobody really wants to think about that?

These are general questions, not directed at you.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by YOhio

When Obama is saying that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, he's being critical of the choice that so many women have fought so hard to protect.

Not in the slightest. He's saying he wishes women didn't find themselves in the position to have to make such a decision. It's an empathetic position. (Obviously he has more empathy for the woman than for the child, but that's another matter.)

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Oh perhaps. So it is concern for the health of the woman, and not for the unborn. Well, at least that's consistent.

But I am curious about why, if it is not a human life, pro choice folks would even concern themselves with it. Why such pain in the process? I suspect they fully understand that there is something wrong with abortion.

I suspect that you are correct. In fact, almost every choicer I have ever met has said, "Well *I* would never have an abortion, but..."

But I don't know how to explain your other point any more clearly. I'm sure there are a few freaks out there that celebrate abortion, that lament that it's on the decline in this country. But most people recognize the fact that abortion is a difficult and painful decision, even for those who consider themselves pro-choice; and the fact that such an obscene number of abortions take place is indicative that the needs of our women are not being met.

So, pretty much everybody agrees that ideally we'd have fewer abortions in this country. Or any country.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Oh perhaps. So it is concern for the health of the woman, and not for the unborn. Well, at least that's consistent.

But I am curious about why, if it is not a human life, pro choice folks would even concern themselves with it. Why such pain in the process? I suspect they fully understand that there is something wrong with abortion. But I can only assume that something inside them overcomes that feeling, to the point that they don't even want to pass laws that would prevent the aborting of viable fetuses.

I wonder what it is inside them that influences them to move against their better instincts. Otherwise, why such a difficult decision?

Plenty of people who think abortion should be legal also think that abortion for convenience is immoral and the worst possible outcome of a pregnancy.

I think abortion for convenience is disgusting and immoral but because so many people disagree with me I think it should be legal before viability outside the womb (around 20 weeks). There is too large a percentage of society that feels differently from me about abortion and too large a price to pay by forcing women who want abortions underground.

I personally fully support and agree with the Church's instructions to members on when abortion may be considered and I think each couple or the woman should make the decision with their doctor on when the health/safety of the mother is in danger from pregnancy or their child has no chance of survival after birth. Do you want the government involved in authorizing your decision under those circumstances? Not me.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Or is the elephant in the room the unborn, viable child? And nobody really wants to think about that?

yes, it is. And that's why, I suspect, Obama doesn't like the question "at what point does a fetus obtain human rights?" There's an implicit assumption in that question.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Not in the slightest. He's saying he wishes women didn't find themselves in the position to have to make such a decision. It's an empathetic position. (Obviously he has more empathy for the woman than for the child, but that's another matter.)

What can a POTUS really do to reduce the number of pregnancies which lead to abortion? Does he have a plan? More sex-ed? Free birth control? Is it a health care issue? I'm really not sure. With about a million abortions a year, I can't see any educational outreach really impacting that number. IMO, it's a squishy position that gives the appearance of empathy without having to really do anything.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by YOhio

What can a POTUS really do to reduce the number of pregnancies which lead to abortion? Does he have a plan? More sex-ed? Free birth control? Is it a health care issue? I'm really not sure. With about a million abortions a year, I can't see any educational outreach really impacting that number. IMO, it's a squishy position that gives the appearance of empathy without having to really do anything.

yes. it's the health care. He'll improve health care for underprivileged women. That's what he's claiming.

And I agree with your assessment of the POTUS impact on the abortion issue. That's why I no longer let that issue control my vote.

[MikeWaters]

The church has tied itself into a bit of a knot on abortion.

One the one hand, they allow it in the case of rape or incest. On the other hand, the recent press release explaining why gay marriage is wrong called aborted fetuses "lives".

What? "Life" is present in a fetus? Isn't that murder to take an innocent life? Obviously not, because tacit permission is given for rape and incest, should "murder" be desired.

What are we to make of this? For one, the writer(s) of the press release has one opinion, the church another. But beyond that, I think the church is very uncomfortable with theologically labeling women who choose abortion (either as member or non-members) murderers. So, instead, it is basically a "bad thing", with very rough edges when it comes to the church's moral understanding--meaning that there really is no guiding ethical/moral principal in regard to an understanding of the fetus in the church's position.

That is slightly unsatisfying. Again, who comes in with an ethically reasoned position--the Catholic Church. It seems that every area of hot moral dispute, the Catholic Church has a policy and argument. The LDS church does not. According to one writer, as I linked to before, the LDS press release against gay marriage was basically cribbed from Catholic Scholars (and therefore makes a lot more sense to Catholics than Mormons, e.g. marriage/sex is basically solely for reproduction).

Another part of me tells myself that it is ok the church doesn't have an ethical position on the most important moral question of our time--abortion. After all, look at all the crazy, and since rejected, positions taken by apostles and prophets of yester-yore. If not sure, keep your mouth shut. If sure, still keep your mouth shut. If sure and everyone else is sure, keep your mouth shut. These are good policies for religious leaders. Let the people sort it out in their own lives, and look to God instead of Man for answers to these questions.

It is basically worthless to look to the Church Handbook of Instructions (that only a fraction of a percent of male LDS are allowed to read) for deciding an ethical position on abortion. There is none there. So far, it has been about equivalently useful to look to LDS official press releases to come up with a reasoned, ethical position on gay marriage.

We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church has tied itself into a bit of a knot on abortion.

One the one hand, they allow it in the case of rape or incest. On the other hand, the recent press release explaining why gay marriage is wrong called aborted fetuses "lives".

What? "Life" is present in a fetus? Isn't that murder to take an innocent life? Obviously not, because tacit permission is given for rape and incest, should "murder" be desired.

What are we to make of this? For one, the writer(s) of the press release has one opinion, the church another. But beyond that, I think the church is very uncomfortable with theologically labeling women who choose abortion (either as member or non-members) murderers. So, instead, it is basically a "bad thing", with very rough edges when it comes to the church's moral understanding--meaning that there really is no guiding ethical/moral principal in regard to an understanding of the fetus in the church's position.

That is slightly unsatisfying. Again, who comes in with an ethically reasoned position--the Catholic Church. It seems that every area of hot moral dispute, the Catholic Church has a policy and argument. The LDS church does not. According to one writer, as I linked to before, the LDS press release against gay marriage was basically cribbed from Catholic Scholars (and therefore makes a lot more sense to Catholics than Mormons, e.g. marriage/sex is basically solely for reproduction).

Another part of me tells myself that it is ok the church doesn't have an ethical position on the most important moral question of our time--abortion. After all, look at all the crazy, and since rejected, positions taken by apostles and prophets of yester-yore. If not sure, keep your mouth shut. If sure, still keep your mouth shut. If sure and everyone else is sure, keep your mouth shut. These are good policies for religious leaders. Let the people sort it out in their own lives, and look to God instead of Man for answers to these questions.

It is basically worthless to look to the Church Handbook of Instructions (that only a fraction of a percent of male LDS are allowed to read) for deciding an ethical position on abortion. There is none there. So far, it has been about equivalently useful to look to LDS official press releases to come up with a reasoned, ethical position on gay marriage.

We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle.

This is good. I'll weigh in. I agree you're too good for most anyone here. We need to figure out how to start a well known blog of alternative Mormon thought. I can play Satan, the foil. The apostate. I'm afraid we may have to recruit Tex. You show a third way between SU and Tex. TD for comic relief.