On abortion

[ERCougar]

So what are the more humane methods of a late term abortion?

And which of them can I do to the starving man with your approval?

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

[All-American]

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

I don't think the starving man would regard you dilating his cervix as humane, but maybe that's just me.

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

[imanihonjin]

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

Isn't a D&E only for like 2nd trimester abortions but not third? Also, isn't it true that in many cases the baby is given something to stop the heart beat before extraction?

[imanihonjin]

I don't think the starving man would regard you dilating his cervix as humane, but maybe that's just me.

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

He already answered that....murder or neglect.

[ERCougar]

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

[Solon]

I actually don't understand the theologic objection. Accepting the Mormon belief of a pre-existent spirit, why would abortion prevent "a chance for a life at all"? Does the spirit lose its opportunity to come down to Earth? The two reasons I can think of for this life (per Mormon theology) is choice and gaining a body, neither of which an unborn fetus accomplishes.

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

[All-American]

On abortion

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

Only the parts that interested me. In other words, not really.

So let me try to catch up. We agree that if you don't feed a starving man, it's not a big deal as far as the law is concerned, but if you let your child starve, it's a form of homicide. The only difference, of course, being that a parent owes some measure of responsibility to their child.

And the split, it appears, is that you think a parent owes no more responsibility to a child in the womb than to a vagabond on the street.

That about right?

[imanihonjin]

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

I think the point being, why is withholding support by a mother after birth different than before?

[smokymountainrain]

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

On the other hand, Mormons like kids/babies, so they tend toward not wanting to see them killed. Quite the conundrum for the typical Mormon, right?

[SCcoug]

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

Only if you forget about proxy ordinances.

[ERCougar]

Only the parts that interested me. In other words, not really.

So let me try to catch up. We agree that if you don't feed a starving man, it's not a big deal as far as the law is concerned, but if you let your child starve, it's a form of homicide. The only difference, of course, being that a parent owes some measure of responsibility to their child.

And the split, it appears, is that you think a parent owes no more responsibility to a child in the womb than to a vagabond on the street.

That about right?

I never said anything about him being a vagabond, although that's perhaps a telling assumption on your part. Why are you devaluing his life so much?
And yes, there is a well-established and agreed upon parental responsibility towards a child. Of course, you know this.

[ERCougar]

I think the point being, why is withholding support by a mother after birth different than before?

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...59-On-abortion

[imanihonjin]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...59-On-abortion

Despite what you believe, the only answer you have really given to my question is simply that a child shouldn't be afforded rights until it is born. I see your point of view, but sorry, it doesn't really offer the meaningful distinction that you think it does. There is no meaningful difference between withholding support and nutrition to a baby at 40 weeks of a pregnancy and withholding that same nutrition and support 1 minute after the baby is born.

[All-American]

I never said anything about him being a vagabond, although that's perhaps a telling assumption on your part. Why are you devaluing his life so much?

I wonder what exactly it reveals about me that I assume a man starving on the streets doesn't have much by way of assets. I stand duly rebuked; from now on, I will assume that people starve on the streets only because of legal restrictions on withdrawing from their Roth IRAs.

And yes, there is a well-established and agreed upon parental responsibility towards a child. Of course, you know this.

But a parent owes no more responsibility to their child in utero than to the starving man on the street (who, for all I know, is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who misplaced his debit card).

[Northwestcoug]

For what it's worth, I've seen my fair share of third trimester deaths come my way by autopsy. Some of them due to infections, and some of them with no identifiable cause. But some of them could conceivably be chalked up to maternal neglect; i.e. smoking and drugs. If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.