Great itunes feedback/The War in Heaven/JC’s BOM theory for Human Action/Abortion and the Proper Role of Government
Newsletter Subscribe
-
Current Book Spotlight
LDS Liberty Network Blogs
-
Most Popular All-Time Articles
- Illegal Immigration and the Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy - 27,953 views
- Why I Do Not Pledge Allegiance to the Flag - 23,757 views
- Liberty and Socialism Cannot Co-exist! - 12,674 views
- The Coming Apostasy of Latter-day Conservatives - 11,177 views
- Immigration, Individual Rights, and the Constitution - 6,910 views
-
Wow, I just spent an hour writing a response to this episode, but because there was a typo in my email address, it was deleted.
In short, I find it disturbing that you both take it for granted that abortion is a kind of murder. The Church certainly doesn’t treat it as such, making allowances for rape and danger to the mother (neither of which would excuse it if it were murder) and having no official stance on the common birth control pill (which can induce an early-term abortion). Personally, I find the possibility that it is murder enough reason to refrain from abortion. However, since no being can have rights until it has desires and the capacity to communicate them, and since there is no objective means to determine when “life begins,” enforcing my personal views is entirely unjustified.
On a practical note, in a truly free market, abortion would likely be much less common, given the rights to associate freely (i.e. ostracism) and to buy and sell children.
Speaking of “the pill,” I find it darkly humorous that so many LDS often vote for a statist (generally a Republican) on the grounds that he opposes an act (abortion) which they have possibly unknowingly engaged in (by taking birth control), and over which he has little or no control anyway (because of Roe v. Wade).
“However, since no being can have rights until it has desires and the capacity to communicate them”
Hope you’re never in a coma.
Why? My wife knows my wishes in that regard fairly well, and I trust her judgment.
Interesting remarks. I’ve been pondering them. I think that the discussion of when exactly it is that life begins rests on false premises.
I imagine that it would be interesting to know at what point the spirit of a child is considered to have had a mortal existence for the purposes of obtaining an earthly tabernacle for the purposes of salvation in the eternal realms.
If this zygote or cellular cluster is small enough, does God say, “Well let’s send you to Earth again and see if these parents won’t kill you this time.”
If this clsuter of cells divides enough and grows to a certain point would God say “Well that’s your body kiddo and you lost it so now the parents are condemned and you have a free trip to my rest for eternity…or at least you get to pass go and land straight to Christ’s millennial reign on Earth.”?
I don’t think that any of us will know….until we are either dead or ‘twinkled’.
I think that salient questions we should ask are: At what point are the parents obligated in the eyes of God, to care for this fetus? It may be as soon as the sperm hits the egg…or it may be as soon as two people jump in bed……signing an implied contract.
There are more…but I’ll save them for later…my arms are sore :P
You conspirators deleted my post the other day, so now I have to repost :D just kidding. I am sure it was some sort of mix up on my end.
Any way, now that I have time to repost there is another comment to work my response into.
A liberty minded person does not fall into a double standard when he wants to legally limit abortions. A fundamental God given right is that to life (D&C 134). The individuals involved in contemplating the abortion a plurality of the time had their agency to have relations or not, if they used their agency to do so, the principle of agency does not take away consequences. One must still abide by the consequences of their actions.
If they did not want the consequence of a child, they should not have engaged in activity that brings about children.
It is within the proper role of government to protect life, and to limit the ability of a mother to suck the brains out of the head of their child that has yet to travel through the birth canal.
Now as for the Church’s exception to the rule, it is first a practice, not a doctrine. Second, it does not say that those are circumstances that automatically justify killing the baby. It just says that they should consult with their Priesthood leader and the Lord to make the right decision.
It is essential to understand the doctrine behind not preventing the birth of a child to understand that the point in which the spirit enters the body is irrelevant.
David O. McKay, General Conference October 1943
Seeking the pleaseures of conjugality without a willingness to assume the responsibilities of rearing a family is one of the onslaughts that now batter at the structure of the American home. Intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever-present factors in determining the coming of children to the household.
When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring, the use of contraceptives is to be condemned.
David O. McKay, General Conference October 1941
To warn of a great danger I must speak of it more specifically. I do so most reverently.
If it shall please the Lord to send to your home a goodly number of children, I hope, I pray, you will not deny them entrance.
If you should, it would cause you infinite sorrow and remorse. One has said that he could wish his worst enemy no more hell than this, that in the life to come someone might approach him and say,
“I might have come down into the land of America and done good beyond computation, but if I came at all I had to come through your home and you were not man enough or women enough to recieve me. You broke down the frail footway on which I must cross and then you thought you had done a clever thing.”
-Elder Bednar Feb. 2006 Leadership training session.
The commandment given anciently to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force today.
Since that commandment is still enforce today these words by Elder Hugh B Brown are extremely relevant: “The problem of birth control and voluntary barrenness is poisoning the very fountains of life and defying God’s injunction to multiply and replenish the earth.”
Elder Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, April 1969
The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father’s children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity. The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or cancelled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or when there is peace on earth, or until you have four children. The Bible says, “Lo, children, are an heritage of the Lord: . . . Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. . . .” (Ps. 127:3, 5.) We believe God is glorified by having numerous children and a program of perfection for them. So also will God glorify that husband and wife who have a large posterity and who try to raise them up in righteousness.
General Conference Dallin H Oaks Oct. 1993
When married couples postpone childbearing until after they have satisfied their material goals, the mere passage of time assures that they seriously reduce their potential to participate in furthering our Heavenly Father’s plan for all of his spirit children. Faithful Latter-day Saints cannot afford to look upon children as an interference with what the world calls ‘self-fulfillment.’ Our covenants with God and the ultimate purpose of life are tied up in those little ones who reach for our time, our love, and our sacrifices.
President Boyd K Packer said in 2003,
People write asking what is the position of the Church on the Word of Wisdom, for instance, on soft drinks or something. And we think, “Why do they have to ask?” It is a principle, and you have the freedom to do as you will. You do not have to be commanded in all things. Without having to have the Church deliver a statement on it, you should know what the Lord’s position is on abortion or cloning or same-gender marriage or birth control. All of those things are built in as a part of what we know and what we are.
Brigham Young
There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty? To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can.
In General Conference, Elder Stephen L Richards
One has said that he could not wish his worst enemy no more hell than this, that in the life to come someone might approach him and say, ‘I might have come down into the land of America and done good beyond computation, but if I came at all I had to come through your home and you were not man enough or woman enough to receive me. You broke down the frail footway on which I must cross and then you thought you had done a clever thing.’
Elder Melvin J Ballard
Let not the mothers of the present nor those of the future, be swerved from the right path by any environment or circumstance that seems to mitigate against the performance of this duty. Let not poverty bar the way, for if poverty had been a consideration on the part of the mothers of the past, many of us would not be here.
To treat the sacred subject of life so flippantly and devoid to the reverence it demands, is to not understand its truly significant place.
David O McKay said that next to life itself, agency was our greatest gift from God. So that means life, as much as I love, defend and cherish agency, life is a slight bump above it.
Agency: YES, remove consequences: NEVER
Ezra, I’m sorry to say that I skipped your numerous quotations since I personally believe it’s morally wrong to use birth control. This has nothing to do with whether it should be illegal, however. Surely it is immoral to habitually use crack cocaine, or become a prostitute, or commit suicide in the prime of your life, but I don’t think any of those should be illegal, because one does not violate the legitimate rights of others in performing any of those acts. Similarly, since it is unclear whether the rights of a human being are violated in performing an abortion, I can’t justify making it illegal, no matter how much I personally find it immoral. What I am justified in doing is refusing to associate with abortionists (including those who continue to use “the pill” after understanding its nature).
What I was doing with those quotes was to show the irrelevancy of when life begins.
It is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of protecting life, as well as preserving the consequences of actions.
We would not say that although we disagree with steeling, we must not stop someone from using their agency, that violates the rights of the person being stolen from. If you steel, there are consequences.
Same principle as abortion.
If we were to start removing the consequences to all actions, liberty would actually decrease, not increase.
Again, protection of life is an essential function of government, not helping remove consequences to actions.
Again, protection of life is an essential function of government…
That’s a convenient misstatement, for two reasons.
1. I notice you didn’t say “human life,” since that would raise the question of when human life begins, which you have declared irrelevant. But clearly the protection of life in general (for example, that of plants and animals) is not a legitimate function of government.
2. If there is an essential function of government, it is the protection of rights, not human life per se. For example, government has no right to “protect” the life of someone who wishes to die, nor to protect an attacker from his victim’s lethal self-defense, nor to protect smokers and rock climbers from their risky behaviors, etc. Even if you had said “protection of human life,” your statement is far too general.
splitting hairs :(
Like the Supreme Court says regarding porn, “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it”.
Government has no rights at all. Children of God do, and government was created by God to protect the rights of his children here on earth (or on their way here).
Really, that’s it? In my view, I showed that your whole comment rested on bad foundations, and you have no further response than that?
I am going to say this just to throw another side to the argument to see where it goes.
1st. When a baby becomes a life is a pointless argument because from the very beginning cells are reproducing to create a life. If you get rid of the cells at any point you are killing a life. If you end the creation at any point in time then it is getting rid of the end result which is life.
2nd. This has to do with birth control. With my first daughter I had toxemia. I got pregnant with my second child less than 2 months after having my first child. I had my second child 2 weeks less than a year after having my first child.
I went to my bishop crying. I did not want to stop having sex with my ex but, I get pregnant Super Easy and could not handle getting pregnant again, right away. My bishop told me to take birth control. I did have another child later on but, in the middle I did use birth control.
I agree that the government is to protect rights; one of those rights is the right to life. Not to save us from consequences to our actions. This would make one of the government’s essential functions to protect life, not save it from consequences of our own actions but, to protect us from harm.
I just listened to your Podcast on this subject today and I want to add to your concept “a little adjustment you might say”, that might make it a little clearer concept. That is that the opposite of faith is fear, not disbelief.
My wife has been telling me for a month that she finally found a couple of passionate radicals that sound just like me and that I should listen to your podcasts.
I have Fibromyalgia and have a difficult time following something as complex as your first discourse J.C. in this subject, but I think you’re in line with what I believe on the subject, and I agree with almost everything I have heard so far.
Keep up the great work. I commend you for your courage and commitment.