"The Church allows for possible exceptions"can someone
please tell in which revelation did elohim give this information and to which
prophet and when. thanks.WWJD? == who would jesus destroy?terminating a week old egg is not murder. the issue is not black and white. if
you argue from the perspective of "it could have grown up to be someone
great", then you would be against contraceptives as well. you would also be
against the death penalty--"he could have repented and come unto christ had
he had enough time". if your doctor could prove the fetus had anencephaly
and that it wouldnt survive birth, but at the same time your wife could die in
birth, but her chances would dramatically increase with an abortion, would you
still risk letting your wife die even though the baby would certainly die right
None of the comments about who we should or should not vote for has any
relevance to an article entitled "The Mormon Church's official statement on
abortion."The Church doesn't tell us which candidate to vote
for, or against.
@6:33You are obsessed with demonizing President Obama.The fact that you left President Reagan out of your original comment @3:55,
proves that point.Just wanted to make sure both sides of the aisle
received equal demonizing.
@what now Murdering a live baby is ok in the "right context"?
ThIs one is about as black and white as it gets. Give me a break! No moral
relativism about this one, he voted for it three times! And no we should never
vote for anyone including Reagan who thinks murder is a "choice".
@3:55With all due respect, using the same kind of reasoning, your
example could easily be made on the other side of the aisle.For
example:"Does this mean we shouldn't vote for politicians who
support abortion on demand"?How about a California Governor who
signed an abortion law which led to the abortion of 2,000,000. Should we have voted for such an individual?If not, then none of
us should have voted for Ronald Wilson Reagan because he was that Governor.Without an "explanation" of the context of either
"vote", either of the two politicians could be made out to be uncaring
Re: NewInUtah | 3:12 p.m. May 1, 2011 Churches have not only the
right but also the responsibility to give advise and council on all issues that
involve morality. Every organization, religious or otherwise, have guidelines
that their members are expected to adhere to.How could it be
Yes, abortion is a personal matter. It is also a moral matter. At its basis is
the family. When a man and a woman act together to create a child, that action
transcends the two of them. It involves a third person.Is it
immoral for a Church to speak for that third person?Is is immoral
for a Church to remind us that life is sacred?Is is immoral for a
Church to place sanctions on people within its membership who wantonly destroy
that innocent third person?Actually, there is very little that is
personal in abortion. A personal matter can be resolved by a person or persons
when they are the only people involved. That is not the case in abortion. Two
people have no right to speak for the third person that they have created. Two
people cannot vote to destroy the life of the third person. Two people cannot
pretend that the third person would not become just as much of a human being as
they are.A Church has a moral obligation to represent the will of
its leader. Christ is that leader. What would he do?
Does this mean that we shouldn't vote for politicians who support abortion on
demand? How about a state senator who voted three times to allow a doctor in a
hospital to go find a baby who accidentally survived an abortion and kill it?
Should we vote for such politician? If not then none of us should have voted for
Barack Hussein Obama because he is that senator.
Abortion is a personal matter. A person or couple should not have to get
anyones permission before coming to a decision about whether or not to have an
abortion. Sure they can seek advise and council, but saying you have to talk to
someone first is wrong.