Deseret News | LDS, Demos alike on abortion

Reader comments
Readers' forum: LDS, Demos alike on abortion

164 comments | Read story

Thomas and KVC | 1:13 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"The old school Democrats like FDR, Truman, and Kennedy would take one look at the current crop and retch."

How do you think Lincoln would feel about the current crop of Republicans?

"Anyone with half a brain knows that Faust did not vote Democratic in his later years."

I must admit to being surprised that his voting record has now become public knowledge. Saying "I heard from a friend who talked to somebody..." does not constitute evidence (it's hearsay). Regardless of whether he voted for Clinton, the fact remains that Faust was a Democrat and a "worthy" member of the LDS Church. This completely refutes the claim made by "cats" and others that one cannot be both a Democrat and a good Mormon.

I guess you better go tell my Bishop to take away my temple recommend now, because I apparently am no longer worthy since I became a Democrat. While you're at it, be sure to tell Harry Reid's Bishop, too.

re: KVC | 1:34 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Yeah, right.
Nobody listens to Limbaugh in Utah (even though Utah is the awful man's largest audience).
You sound EXACTLY like the people-hater but insist you never listen to him.
Yeah, right.

An honest group these neocons are, aren't they?

Mike Richards | 1:40 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

To Seriously Offended,

Congratulations on being willing to spend two years of your life giving help and instruction to others. If every young man and every young woman did the same, this world would be a much better place.

Believe it or not, when I was a seventeen-year-old student at BYU, I considered myself to be a Democrat. That was the fall of 1967, long before the Democrats dropped off the left-side of the earth and the Republicans moved to the extreme left themselves. Roe v Wade was still six years in the future. Vietnam was in the future of every able-bodied young man and I was enrolled in Air Force ROTC to prepare myself for that day.

Along the way, I went to Belgium and France to serve my 2-year mission. There I got to work with real honest-to-goodness socialists and communists. Their lives were nothing like the textbooks had said. Their despair and disillusionment were real. They hungered for the opportunity to live in America and to have the opportunity to WORK to better themselves without Government interference.

I became a Republican. You may experience the same political change in Costa Rica that I experienced in France.

Comments continue below

Chris Plummer | 1:49 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

RE: Mike Richards,

I know you have strong views on abortion, and you know I'm a pro-choicer.

My question to you is what gives you or anyone else the right to regulate the insides of other peoples bodies.

And the second question: Do you really think making abortions illegal with STOP abortions?

jwr | 1:54 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

I love it when men discuss obortion, many a man helps to create the life then run for the hills and leaves the female with the whole burden. I'm tired of men deciding what is right or wrong for the woman
I don't support full term abortion but I support the womans right to make that choice as only she knows what she is dealing with and by dang her life is equally important as well

to JWR | 2:26 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

So you must support a man's right to not pay a dime in child support if she keeps the pregnancy. If a woman has the right to dump her responsibilities, then so does a man.
And it is not about whhat is right or wrong for the woman, it is about what is right or wrong for the baby. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, why does she have unprotected sex? If I did not want to get pregnant, I would take extra measures to avoid it. I believe once you make a decision to have sex, you have abdicated your choice on whether you have a baby or not. Women know how pregnancy occurs. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your decisions.

to Chris Plummer: When you have another life inside of you, you have lost some of your freedom by your own actions. That's when the other life deserves protection as well.

By the way, I am a woman.

re Secular Alternative | 10:30 | 2:38 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Unlike using contraception or abstence only, Abortion is a legitimate thing for government to get involved in. This because abortions kill people who happen to be unborn.

Contracetion does no actual harm to anyone, it takes religious faith to believe it is wrong. Therefore the government has no business regulating this.

Thomas | 2:42 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Whether or how often I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show is my own business. My opponents' business, if they want to convince anyone whose opinion is worth a hang, is to address the arguments I make with more than sneers and refute them.

Of course you can be a Mormon and a Democrat. Only fools (and I include a lot of Mormons in that description) believe that a person's character is determined by what he, upon honest and serious reflection, believes.

Chris -- The relevant question is this: At what point does a developing child stop being a part of a woman's body, and become an independent entity deserving of human rights? As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your first ends where my nose begins.

So maybe that's our bright line: Abortion should be illegal from the point in a pregnancy where a fetus grows a nose.

CD | 3:30 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

What is best for the baby? To force a mother to have an unwanted child? Common sense would say that a woman who is forced to have he child probably wouldn't be the best mother. You could argue for adoption, but there are already more children needing homes than there are willing adopting parents. So that would just add to that list, and make it harder for those children to be adopted. We don't know how God works, and when the spirit enters the physical body. Does anyone ever think of what happens to a spirit when the child is aborted? (or miscarried) It seems if you believe in God's plan, that the spirit would come back as someone else. Do we really want to force that spirit to be born to someone who doesn't want them? If you think my belief is wrong, then it just proves that we all have different beliefs, and we don't know who's right. So when we decide governmental policy, we should do it on how it affects society. What's the point in outlawing something that doesn't affect anyone outside of the mother and father?

Prove it to your Gods & Masters | 3:41 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Republicans want women to prove it. If you were raped you must come before a court of law and prove that you were raped and you must disclose to the entire world your humiliation and pain. If you are the victim of incest you must come before them and tell them all the gory details of what happened to you.

If your health is threatened by having a child and you could die in childbirth or from complications during or after the birth you must prove it to them. You aren't a free agent, capable of making informed and moral choices instead you are a intellectually and morally inferior individual.

Why should Republicans concern themselves with persuasion, education and providing adoption and family planning incentives when they are the ones who get to decide who can and can't have an abortion.

Is one doctor certifying that your life is in danger enough proof for the Court of Republican Voters and Jurors? Or will you need 2, 3 or 12 plus to certify that your life is in danger? Does it have to be a government doctor who has been certified as being pro-life?

What evidence is necessary for rape/incest?

Anonymous | 3:54 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Rush Limbaugh is "a people-hater adored by people-haters," (Gerry Spence).
It is obvious by their postings, Thomas and Mike Richards adore Rush Limbaugh.

Normal America is wise to Limbaugh being a stooge for the neoconservative movement.

Thank God!

Faust was a lifelong Democrat | 4:00 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

KVC,

"Anyone with half a brain knows that Faust did not vote Democratic in his later years."

Faust repeatedly demonstrated by his actions and talks that he was a Democrat. Meridian Magazine in describing Faust stated that "President Faust continued the family tradition as a lifelong Democrat. He was so prominent in the party that at one time he was appointed by President John F. Kennedy to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Racial unrest."

Do you think Faust would have received an appointment by President Kennedy, serve as Chair of the Utah Democratic Party and as a Democrat in the Utah Legislature if he wasn't a Democrat?

"I guess you think he opposed the First Presidency pronouncement that we tell our Senators to vote to ban gay marriage, even though he was part of that First Presidency."

The First Presidency didn't tell Senators to vote to ban gay marriage and the Church has NEVER instructed Senators how to vote. Since it didn't happen there's no reason for Faust to oppose it but if the First Presidency did try to tell Senators how to vote I suspect Faust would have objected just like I suspect Uchtdorf would object.

Travis | 4:06 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

From lds.org:

Abortion

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Thomas | 4:39 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Crickets continue to chirp as we await substantive argument from Mr. Anonymous.

All the fine-tuning and hedging and obfuscation about the details of abortion policy is designed to obscure this one ugly, inconvenient truth, namely, that the closer you get to birth, the harder it becomes to deny that the line between abortion and infanticide fades to insignificance.

Sure, bioethics is one of those areas where the lines may not be drawn brightly -- at least, if you're not willing to let either conception or birth serve as the bright line. What I see among many "pro-choicers," though, is a craven unwillingness to make a decision -- any decision.

I can respect an honest opinion as to when a fetus gets close enough to being a baby that the law has a legitimate interest in protecting it, even if it differs from mine. (Assuming, that is, that the line isn't drawn at birth -- I simply can't countenance the idea that killing a baby an hour before birth is anything but infanticide.) I *can't* respect the gray, abdicating souls that try to turn away from the matter altogether.

Mike Richards | 4:57 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

@ 3:54,

Rush is my favorite. (Sigh) I listen to him everyday from 9:00 'till 1:00. If there's a death in the family, the funeral has to be scheduled around Rush. If an emergency call comes in from one of my customers, Rush takes precedence! I'd rather take a "contempt of court" charge than risk missing Rush, my hero. (Sigh)

Come on "Anonymous", an educated person like you can surely come up with some other excuse for Thomas and me.

Not intellectually inferiors | 5:24 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Travis,

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church."

This position is consistent with the position of the Democratic Party. The Utah County Democratic Party Platform, re-stating the DNC position, states:

"...we believe in the sanctity of human life and that there should be a balance between the rights of the woman and her unborn child. We believe that every abortion is a tragedy. We oppose elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and believe that abortion should be limited to instances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or in cases of fatal fetal deformities, or when competent medical authority determines that there is a serious threat to the life or health of the mother."

The Democratic Party believes that abortions should be rare but that abortions must be legal in cases of rape and not for personal or social convenient but we also believe that the best way to prevent abortion is to educate, persuade and provide incentives.

Anonymous | 5:26 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Every national election the neoconservative movement gets extremely active.

And like censorship, prayer in public school, stem-cell research, same-sex unions, they like to draw attention to how much they hate the Roe v Wade law and do everything they can to politicize the issue.
And when it's all said and done, the above issues remain the same.

This is America afterall - not an Eastern Bloc country.

Re:DBG | 5:32 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Your right to choose does not give you the right to escape the consequence of your choice. Agency has boundaries! You are not free to steal, murder, rape, etc., without a consequence. All the above are attached to moral law and I submit to you that every legitimate law with justice attached must be aligned with moral law.

Contrary to your statement it is moral law that legitimizes legislation, defines justice, and civilizes nations. The force you refer to would be to prescribe thought police to lock you in your room and prevent you from committing any corrupt act. You are free to choose but after the choice comes the judgement of moral law and a consequence for those actions. The consequence may come immediately by natural means affecting only the perpetrator, or later effecting many others ironically resulting in enacting mans law to address it.

People like you attempt to pass off that comment under the protection of agency or the Constitution. But the founders declared that our rights are derived from moral or natural law and that moral law is the law! It is man that must subjugate himself to moral law not the other way around.

My belief basedo n LDS doctrine | 5:38 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Thomas,

"All the fine-tuning and hedging and obfuscation about the details of abortion policy is designed to obscure this one ugly, inconvenient truth, namely, that the closer you get to birth, the harder it becomes to deny that the line between abortion and infanticide fades to insignificance."

That's the position taken in Roe V. Wade which makes it clear the closer you get to birth the more rights the unborn child possesses.

Roe v. Wade ruled that the state has a legitimate interest in the potentiality of life during the third trimester that it can proscribe abortion, that the state can regulate abortion during the second trimester in terms of the mothers health but has no legitimate interest in regulating or proscribing abortion during the first trimester. Because families shouldn't have to prove rape, incest, life or health of mother.

"I can respect an honest opinion as to when a fetus gets close enough to being a baby that the law has a legitimate interest in protecting it, even if it differs from mine."

So you respect Roe v. Wade which states that IT IS THE THIRD TRIMESTER when the state has an interest in protecting the POTENTIALITY of life.

This about your lack of morals | 5:47 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Thomas,

"The relevant question is this: At what point does a developing child stop being a part of a woman's body, and become an independent entity deserving of human rights?"

The Supreme Court ruled that "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Instead the Court chose to balance the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child and ruled the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of life during the third trimester except in cases of life and health of the mother. Prior to the third trimester the state has an interest in regulating abortion in respect to the health of the mother but the state CAN"T restrict the right of a mother to an abortion during the first trimester or compel them to prove the reason they are having an abortion.

They don't have to prove they were raped, or victims of incest before getting permission. That's immoral!

Republicans love big government | 5:52 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Why do Republicans insist on demanding big government step in and intervene into its citizens private lives?

Thomas | 5:55 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"My belief," I do not respect Roe v. Wade -- not because of its substance (which is misguided) but because it marks the high tide of the American judiciary's disregard of an objective standard of law.

As a lawyer, that is something I cannot forgive. When laws cease to have objective meaning -- when a tribunal can substitute his own preferences for what the text of the law actually says, or read into the law what simply isn't there -- the concept of self-government ceases to be a reality.

The Constitution, like all laws, derives its only legitimacy from the fact that it represents the decision of the representatives of the people, at the time its provisions were enacted, to be governed by certain specific rules, enacted in text that had a specific meaning. When judges who have no such legitimacy -- having *not* been elected for the specific purpose of drafting a Constitution -- purport to write their own preferences into the text, that's a betrayal of consensual government -- and if that goes, there's no legitimacy to any of this.

As for the "trimester" system, it has a "health" exception that completely swallows the rule.

Thomas | 6:02 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Anon, if not for the Supreme Court taking abortion out of the realm of democratic government and into the sphere of philosopher-kings, we would have arrived at a reasonable consensus years ago.

"Because families shouldn't have to prove rape, incest, life or health of mother."

Why on earth not? You have to prove virtually everything else when you ask the government to sanction your conduct. (Just try getting a zoning variance.) Make the standard of proof as easy as you want (even a declaration under penalty of perjury could suffice for rape/incest), but why ought there be no requirement of any proof at all.

confounded by Thomas | 6:08 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"As a lawyer" I am confounded why Thomas insists on spending his personal time posting on these basically worthless blogs rather than getting out there in the trenches and promoting his causes:
ie. overturning Roe v Wade.

The truth | 6:08 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Everyone is for personal choice.

But when you are talking about a dependent human life it is not about personal choice anymore.

Thomas | 6:24 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"Republicans love" -- Because abortion isn't *just* a matter of one person's private life. Although you desperately need to deny it, every day that passes in a pregnancy makes it that much harder for you to distinguish what you are doing from infanticide.

Or do you think a magical flash happens the moment the baby's last toe clears the birth canal, changing an inanimate, inhuman blob of cells into a human being in the twinkling of an eye?

There is no uniquely Republican support for intervening in people's private lives. Nobody is calling to criminalize adultery or sodomy; to the extent that there are bipartisan objections to pornography and drugs, it's based on a reasonable fear that those things have external effects, rendering society less safe.

But let me ask you this: I spend the majority of my waking hours in economic activities. Democrats have no problem regulating the tar out of *that* aspect of my private life. They strain at the gnat of restrictive zoning of an adult bookstore, and swallow the camel of imposing a crushing regulatory and tort burden on dang near everything else.

To: Travis | 6:34 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Also from LDS.ORG

Abortion

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

ï¿½ Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

ï¿½ A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

ï¿½ A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

to @ joseph 9:01 am | 6:33 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

I rechecked the DNC 2008 Platform. Its on line. Page 50 at the bottom states that the DNC supports a women's right to choose a safe and legal abortion. There is nothing about rare in the whole paragraph. Check your facts before you post misinformation. That is the official Platform. I have a job or would have responded sooner.

Thomas | 6:42 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"Confounded" --

I'm good at multitasking.

Re: confounded by Thomas | 7:25 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Re: confounded by Thomas,

"As a lawyer" I am confounded why Thomas insists on spending his personal time posting on these basically worthless blogs rather than getting out there in the trenches and promoting his causes: ie. overturning Roe v Wade."

That's because he's probably not a lawyer. Almost every forum has its share of LAWYERS because they can post anonymously and this allows them to appeal to authority when otherwise they wouldn't be able to. There are people like Thomas who will make up credentials for themselves that don't exist because no one can verify it.

He may have worked for a lawyer or took a law class during college but most of his information clearly comes from the internet. His lack of knowledge of Roe v. Wade makes it clear that he doesn't know the law and has never attended law school.

I hope you weren't | 7:29 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"Seriously Offended" by my comments....because they are true! I really had misscarriages and although they weren't my choice, I sympathize with those that have to make a choice due to emotional, medical, or financial concerns. This should not be a Democrat or a Republican issue. Perhaps it is a religious issue for some, but that isn't anybody else's business!

Anonymous | 7:30 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

When was the last time a Republican in Congress introducted a bill to ban all abortions? I bet you can't find one.

Republicans like to talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

I know a Republican mother who disowned her daughter because she got pregnant and chose to keep the child. The mother will have nothing to do with her or her child. You call family values?

Always a minority is slavery | 7:38 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

Thomas,

"When judges who have no such legitimacy -- having *not* been elected for the specific purpose of drafting a Constitution -- purport to write their own preferences into the text, that's a betrayal of consensual government -- and if that goes, there's no legitimacy to any of this."

That's the basis of consensual government. Do you believe Judges are aliens from outer space? Or are they people from our towns and our communities who speak for those of us who disagree with you about the meaning of the Constitution.

It seems to me that what you find legitimate is your opinion and the opinion of voters who agree with you and you are happy when those voters get elected.

You seek to violate our rights through your elected leaders just like the elected PARLIAMENT who passed the intolerable acts did to our forefathers. You can talk about legitimacy all you want since you love to hear yourself talk and read what you write but those of us who disagree with you will tell you and your family to mind your damn own business.

Those Judges reflect the voices of people who may never get a person into Congress.

to Not Intellectually inferior | 7:42 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

If the Democrats really believe what you wrote, why do they oppose any restriction on abortion, even in the cases you mention? They even oppose late term abortion bans. So how is this consistent with LDS teachings?

FYI, here is Obama's thoughts:
"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said

Sounds like a personal convenience to me. Care to retract your view that Democrats are consistent with the Church, particularly their Presidential Candidate.

Do you care to retract your lies | 8:25 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

to Not Intellectually inferior,

"If the Democrats really believe what you wrote, why do they oppose any restriction on abortion, even in the cases you mention?"

Because we believe in "teaching people correct principles" and "letting them govern themselves, persuasion, education and providing adoption and family planning incentives that would decrease the rate of abortions for social or personal convenience instead of imposing restrictions that would require families to provide proof before being able to have an abortion.

"They even oppose late term abortion bans. So how is this consistent with LDS teachings?"

Obama made it clear that he supports restrictions on late term abortions. Saying "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother."

"Sounds like a personal convenience to me. Care to retract your view that Democrats are consistent with the Church, particularly their Presidential Candidate."

No I don't care to retract something that is true and you have no right to twist Obama's words as you have done and it shows that you are dishonest which indicates you aren't a faithful member.

Thomas | 9:13 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

"Those judges reflect the voices of people who may never get a person into college."

Right. As if there are no pro-choice members of Congress.

Care to rethink your argument?

Surely even you'd concede that judges who are appointed (not elected) to life terms are quite a bit more insulated from democratic accountability. That *should* be a good thing -- judges are supposed to be impartial, and decide cases without being swayed by the transitory whim of the mob. But when judges move away from merely interpreting the law -- their proper function -- and start enacting actual policy -- which even plenty of liberal legal scholars agree the Roe court did -- they are making the country less democratic.

You would consider it a gross violation of democracy if Antonin Scalia authored a Supreme Court decision outlawing abortion. The difference is that he -- being a textualist and not a "living Constitution" philosopher-king -- would never do it, even though he opposes abortion. Because the Constitution's text simply doesn't lend itself to that interpretation, any more than it lends itself to a decision finding a right to abortion.

@8:25 PM | 9:26 p.m. Sept. 2, 2008

So you claim Obama did not say those words regarding children as punishment?
They are well documented and recorded. Part of his reason abortion should not be outlawed. He can attempt to distance himself as much as he wants, but he said them, nobody else. I twisted nothing. They were copied verbatim.
The truth is, Obama opposed penalties for not providing life support for babies who survived botched abortions. It is in his Illinois State Senate record, and not a distortion of fact. He is trying to distance himself from that as well.
He can run from his statements and past records and associations, but he cannot hide.

KJB | 1:21 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

If Republicans really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they'd be fighting passionately for comprehensive sex education. They'd work to make sure that contraceptives are available to anybody who needs them. They'd also devote themselves to increasing assistance to pregnant women living in poverty. Because, you know, all these things would decrease the number of abortions performed. Right?

Mike Richards 1:40 P.M.: That's funny, because my brother was a Republican before he served his mission in France, and now he's a Democrat who would love to live and work there again someday. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Mike Richards | 7:00 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

KJB,
Sex education to limit sexual activity? Contraceptives used to sprinkle water on a raging fire?

Until people respect each other to the point that they will not "use" others for their own sexual pleasure, no sex education will work and no method of contraception will work.

Look at the laws of this country and then look at the crime rate. Passing laws does not educate the criminal. Criminals are going to commit crimes no matter what laws are in place.

People thinking that others are here on earth just for their sexual gratification are in the same league as criminals. They'll take what doesn't belong to them an use it until they find something else to take.

Most abortions are performed because people find it easier to kill an unborn baby than to face up to the consequences of having had sex. Contraception is not the problem. Education is not the problem. Not taking responsibility for actions is the problem.

No contraceptive is 100% effective. Understanding the process of reproduction does not stop sexual activity.

Respect for life would at least stop the killing of unborn babies.

Dan | 8:09 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

There have been 40,000,000 abortions since Roe v Wade. Does that seem rare? That sounds like the biggest holocaust in the history of the world. Being wrapped in the term "A womans right to choose" doesn't make it right. Murder is murder.

As for bringing the Church into this, is the same disgusting marketing of this. What about the commandment "Thou shalt not murder"?

BTW- Jane Roe (Norma Leah McCorvey)is now pro-life. She states that she took a look at a fetal development chart and said that she looked at a 10week embryo and knew then that what she caused was the MURDER of babies. She even petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case again and get it overturned.

xscribe | 8:36 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

TO MIKE RICHARDS:

What a piece of work you are. Lambasting a women's right to choose, and never mentioning the male's role - i.e., in case you didn't know, it takes a man's sperm to fertilize a women's egg - in the sexual encounter. It's an old argument, but holds true today: If the man were the one getting pregnant, this would be a nonissue.

Someone else also wrote about the LDS church's stance on abortion accounts for only 1% of all abortions, and therefore their stance is better than someone who believes in a higher percentage. Murder is murder, whether it be incest, rape, health of the mother. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I could go on and on, but I'm sure I'm speaking to deaf ears.

Anonymous | 8:37 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

Perhaps Thomas ("the lawyer") and Mike Richards can find some time away from this blog and put together a solid case for overturning Roe v Wade.

Other than making it a political issue (every election, as a matter of fact) nobody has been successful. No bill has ever been introduced by Cannon, Hatch, Bennett, et. al to support Thomas and Mike Richards' incessant whining.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Good Mormons Everywhere | 8:58 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

From general authorities and throughout our own wards and branches we have righteous and able people who belong to both parties. The purpose of the Gospel is not to make us all the same politically that would be more like a cult. The gospel is here to teach people how to love each other despite their political positions, gender, race, etc. Or as we Mormons like to say "I'm trying to be like Jesus".

k | 8:59 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

Republicans are concerned with the treatment of every life from conception until death. More have been lost to abortion in the last 30 some years than in every war since this country began. Republicans are very supportive of adoption. Look at John McCain! Adoption is pretty nonpartisan.

blueroselyne | 9:49 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

I wonder how many LDS republicans voted for gwb? Did any of you pay attention to the debates? In his last presidential debate bush reafirmed that Roe v. Wade would NOT be overturned. Anyone who took the time to study the positions on abortion according to voting records knows that Al Gore was consistantly pro life. The republicans have been completely in charge for 8 years. IF they intended to do anything about abortion, they would have done it. The truth is they have used this issue since the 70's as a ploy to gain the support of Christians in order to pass the real legislation that is important to them, giving huge tax breaks to the rich and turning our country into a fascist nation run by large corporations. Notice they have been successful at the latter. Republicans with their judgemental, self righteous positions are more like the Pharisees than like Christ.

Mike Richards | 9:54 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

@ 8:37,

Why do the Democrats want the Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade? This subject has been beaten to death (pardon the unintentional pun). Those who are pro-life do not need Roe v Wade or any other law governing abortion. Only the pro-abortion people have fear that someday, somehow, someone will take away their "right" to abort an unborn baby.

Pro-life Conservatives have no interest in Roe v. Wade. Pro-life Conservatives don't have abortions except in the most extreme circumstance. Pro-life Conservatives don't recommend abortions. Pro-life Conservatives don't perfrom abortions. Pro-life Conservatives do speak out against abortion and the wanton destruction of life.

Mike Richards | 10:12 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

@ xscribe,

Are you saying that I should support abortion because it takes a man to cause a pregnancy? Is that the premise of your post?

If you have read any of my posts, you know that I do not believe in sex of any kind outside of marriage and that I believe that the purpose of marriage includes inviting children into the family. You would know that I believe in full accountability for all actions in life, including sexual relations. You would know that I would never, ever, encourage anyone to abort a baby for any reason.

My wife and I faced that very situation when the doctor told her that the pregnancy could very easily rupture her uterus and that she could bleed to death in a matter of minutes. She talked about the risk. I listened. She talked about the sanctity of life. I listened. She talked about her desire to let that baby live. I listened. She decided to let the baby live. I cried, knowing that I had married a noble woman who was willing to put an innocent baby's interests ahead of her own.

(Also, your 1% figure is highly exaggerated.)

Thomas | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

Blueroselyne: You labor under the common leftist misimpression that "fascism" is "government by large corporations." Do some serious study of fascism (using the writings of scholars, not left-wing polemicists) and you'll learn that this is a false definition.

What leftists characterize as the country being "run by large corporations" is the insistence of said corporations on not being looted completely by leftists. If you honestly think that the United States -- which has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, one of the greatest regulatory burdens, and *by far* the greatest tort-law burden -- is "run by corporations," then those companies are seriously masochistic.

Thomas | 10:54 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

Anon @ 8:37, if you bothered to pay attention to what your evil opponents actually believe, you'd understand that the reason Republicans in federal office don't introduce antiabortion legislation is that Republicans believe (consistent with the Constitution's federal system) that regulating matters like abortion is to be left to the discretion of the states. If Senators Hatch or Bennett introduced a bill to enact federal restrictions on abortion, I would be seriously disappointed with them.

Republican legislators in various states *have* sponsored and enacted various restrictions on abortion -- including the born-alive infant protection statute (intended to prohibit the killing of babies who are accidentally delivered during an attempted abortion) which Barack Obama voted against, and then lied about why he did.

Republican spin | 11:23 a.m. Sept. 3, 2008

This is just more Republican spin.

They are trying to tell us:

Republicans hate it when a woman has an abortion.
Democrats love it when a woman has an abortion.

These people are about as low as a human being can go.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.