To xscribeA general topic for discussion -- why does a potential
entity (which will NOT become a human being until it is born and draws the
breath of life -- the standard to which the LDS Church adheres in determing
whether a temple sealing is available) deserving of more rights and more
protection than the pregnant woman -- an actual living, breathing, life in
being?In case you didn't know it, pregnancy puts a severe
strain on a woman's body, to the point that EVERY pregnancy, however
apparently benign, puts the woman's life, health and well-being at risk
every moment for the entire term of her pregnancy and can easily cost her life
during gestation and delivery. If nutritional support is not present, the fetus
will drain its host dry. The pregnancy can cause problems which will endure
through her entire life.Pregnancy termination is not murder. My
standard and belief -- it is selfish, and should be eschewed unless medically
necessary. BUT the woman is the only life-in-being in the equation. Her
concerns should prevail.
@Truthseeker: So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying abortion is
not okay for some of the unborn, but it is okay to, as some people have called
it, murder those unborn who were products of rape, incest, or the health of the
werSouth Jordan, UTWhy does the media always refer to it as
"Abortion Ban" or "Anti Abortion"? Isn't it really "Pro
Life"?12:02 a.m. Aug. 30, 2012================ Because it ISN'T Pro-Life.This ban did not even include
Life of the Mother as a stipulation for an abortion.Let the woman
die on the table, because some radical politically motivated extremeists
out-lawed a viable [and LDS church approved] option.Ridiculous.
re:xscribe" Why would those fetuses be any different from ones
conceived any other means?"Maybe you should pose your question
to the LDS church. Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever been
raped? Pregnancy entails a significant physical and emotional
involvement/committment which cannot be appreciated by those who've never
been pregnant. To require a woman to carry the child of her rapist disrespects
and disregards that personal involvement and requirement. Some women may make
the choice to continue that pregnancy, but no woman should be compelled to do
so. Additionally, there are potential negative consequences of someone finding
out they were the product of a violent rape.
To xscribe: You posed the question 'Why would those fetuses be any
different from ones conceived any other means?'. I will attempt to answer
how I understand the issue. Normally, when a woman is married, she has
the ability to choose with her husband, the fact that they will or will not
conceive a child. The very fact of a woman being pregnant demands a lot of the
body and spirit. To have that decision (one of whether she will or
will not conceive a child) forced upon her with no decision on her part, makes
her a virtual slave. And unless she gives that child up for adoption, she will
have a lifetime commitment to seeing that child through for the rest of her
life. It can be a reminder of how someone took away her right to choose.
I would never vote for this and it seems too radical for even Colorado to vote
for this, as it has been defeated twice thus far. However, I give these people
credit, as they want a total an on abortion, not the rape, incest, health of the
mother cop-out that most adopt. Why would those fetuses be any different from
ones conceived any other means?
To wer 12:02 a.m. Aug. 30, 2012Why does the media always refer to it
as "Abortion Ban" or "Anti Abortion"? Isn't it really
"Pro Life"?-----------------------When the media
way "abortion ban" or "anti abortion", they are being factually
accurate. That's what these laws are about -- banning abortion.
Why does the media always refer to it as "Abortion Ban" or "Anti
Abortion"? Isn't it really "Pro Life"?