The baby is alive before it is taken out to be operated on.
K, and Furry...Here's a thought to consider. I'm not saying this is
how it is or anything, but a possibility.K said, "Some babies
are operated on in the womb and left to continue development. They don't take a
breath either. They are able to move on their own."If a baby is
taken out of the womb prematurely, this baby is alive. Somehow I can't wrap my
head around "The spirit entering the body at birth only" when many
children aren't "born" essentially. If we open up the womb, operate on
baby (taking baby out or not) the baby physically didn't change... so one can't
justify saying that baby isn't alive.Furry, I just argued that the
baby is alive in the womb. That would stand to say that you should be able to do
work for them. But if the Church isn't doing it I thought of a possible
explanation. Again, I'm not saying this is the truth, just an idea. Maybe your
baby isn't just a body, but has a spirit... BUT if does not live through
birthing that spirit may still enter another body, so no work is needed. Just an
interesting possibility anyway.
RE: Lane MyerRE: Furry19933Ne 1:12-15 is explained easily.Perhaps it was an out-of-body experience for a minute. However, verse 12 indicates it was only a "voice" that was heard, so
not even an out-body experience was even needed, the "voice" may only
have been spoken to his mind, and not physically to his ears.We know
certain ordinances are needed for the living or for those who have lived,we also know certain ordinances are not even necessary, like baptism for
little children,we do not know about those who may have died before
a living birth,But we are to be of good cheer, God will make all
Most of Europe isn't LDS. Some babies are operated on in the womb
and left to continue development. They don't take a breath either. They are able
to move on their own. Other faiths do recognize miscarriages and
still births as family.
Well it sounds like you've made it through quite a bit and with a pretty good
outlook on all of it. That's certainly worth commending.I completely
understand why you'd have the stance, understanding, etc. that you do. That
makes sense to me. The only point I care about is clarifying that the Church has
no official doctrinal resource or declaration or revelation, etc, etc, etc... on
this topic. So in relationship to abortion, I don't think it could strong enough
to be used to formulate an objective argument.Lane: I'm not sure
that Jesus appearing to Nephi would have the same metaphysical principles for an
abortion/birth discussion. All spirit is matter. And time is now as we perceive
it. So while I appreciate the scriptural quote as I think it was very
appropriate and very welcome. On that last thing, I have no clue what to think.
That's an interesting aspect to mention, but again... I don't know that we have
any idea of how that would or wouldn't relate to this.
I'm with Furry."Lift up your head and be of good cheer, for
behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on
the morrow come I into the world, to shew unto the world that I will fulfill all
that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets..."
(3Ne 1:12-15).How else could Jesus appear to Nephi? His spirit was
NOT in his body until his birth, right?
To Freedom-In-Danger | 12:55 p.m.For what it's worth, the fact that
we learned -- that it wasn't possible to seal because the fetuses/stillborns
"hadn't lived" -- was a comfort to us. The only thing we had lost was
hoped-for potential children, and not real, living children. While going
through six difficult pregnancies and four second-trimester miscarriages was
very, very difficult and heartbreaking, it would have been far worse if we had
lost actual, living children. 40-odd years later, we are content with our sons
(and being grandparents) and have reconciled the disappointment and heartbreak
we went through. We recognize that there is a reason for what we were dealt,
and feel very blessed with what we have been given.All I was doing
is giving an accurate and fact-based recounting of what we were told (including,
on several occasions and at several priesthood levels, that the reason for no
ordinances was "that they hadn't lived" and that, if they had been
born and taken even one breath, they would have lived and been eliglble for the
ordinances). We rely on the Church authorities and what they said for our
positions and beliefs.
Furry1993, I completely understand that this is a sensitive issue in general,
and especially for you. Please understand that I am not refuting your
experiences as invalid, untrue, or so on. I am only saying that what God tells
you and another may be different.God has a reason for not doing such
ordinances (for everything really). However, that reason could be a number of
things. Unless God declared or reveals why, no man can claim to know as much. We
know our gospel, but none of us know all of God's work. God may not wish for
such ordinances to take place. But that does not automatically equate to
"They aren't alive" being the reason why. And the Church's position on
abortion certainly does not conflict in any way.For now, it is
unrevealed. The prophet could tell you 'why' and you know. That doesn't mean
that it will or should be revealed to others. No priesthood authority has
revealed this to the church.What I do know is that ALL God's
decisions are loving and for our benefit. This is a wonderful comfort. Such a
blessing truly takes patience and faith to remember and be true to.
It makes perfect sense.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of recommends for this..not, but K, what force is moving
the child in the womb if not the spirit..the same force that moves you and me if
we don't have a spirit. It's the force of synergies created when chemical and
other physical actors come together. It's the reason the baby doesn't move until
those synergies are created. As FDR fan said we don't know yet how this all
works. We can re-create some of the beginning but certainly don't all the
mysteries. The fact that we don't know is why most people continue to hang on
to centuries old myths of spirits and souls..entities seperate from the physical
body. What I can't wait for is the realization that such a ruling
bans all forms of birth control. Even hormonal based birth control has a fall
back purpose of not allowing the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.
Good luck selling that to the next generation of young adults.
To Freedom-In-Danger | 7:28 a.m. Oct. 28, 2011 Then please tell me
why that explanation and criterion was used when my husband and I wanted to have
our (second trimester) miscarried fetuses sealed to us when we had our temple
sealing and had our (living) sons sealed to us. Please tell me why, when I was
doing my family geneology, that explanation and criterion was used when I was
denied the right to have stillborns in my ancestral line sealed to their
families, and I was told that stillborns could NEVER be sealed into families.
Please tell me why, when I contacted the Family History office to revisit the
issue, the same explanation and criterion was used then (and that was within
Furry1993,1- There is NO doctrine or revelation made clear to the
entire membership of the church on this matter. While you may use reasoning to
justify your stance, views, or reaction to personal experiences- there still
remains no revealed answer regarding this sensitive topic.2- If you
are not permitted to do ordinances, there could be several reason why that do
not include your interpretation of when life 'occurs' regarding birth and the
development of the baby. You can not simply give a definitive answer that all
members be subject to based on your personal experiences and personal
interactions with the church. It is very clear, how the organized structure and
authority works within this religion. I am not saying this to offend you or
counter your experiences whatsoever. I'm sure others aren't. I am only saying
that while you may stand by your statements- you have absolutely no place saying
that those statements are official doctrines within the church.3- A
bishop may ask someone not to partake of the sacrament. This does not negate
anything. There are many things yet to be revealed. A fetus may live, yet not
need ordinances. We simply don't know.
Despite all the lofty pretensions of wisdom, it is another case of the blind
leading the blind. We mortals simply do not know.
To the truth | 6:38 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011 Then please tell me why that
explanation and criterion was used when my husband and I wanted to have our
miscarried fetuses sealed to us when we had our temple sealing and had our
(living) sons sealed to us. Please tell me why, when I was doing my family
geneology, that explanation and criterion was used when I was denied the right
to have stillborns in my ancestral line sealed to their families. Please tell
me why, when I contacted the Family History office to revisit the issue, the
same explanation and criterion was used then (and that was within this year).I stand by my statements.
Amazing. All these years the argument has been the child and mother are separate
and that is why its okay to abort. Now the mothers nurturing allows independent
kicking in response to environment. Animals have a spirit. They just
don't have the ability to reason good and evil.
As I understand LDS theology, EVERY LIVING THING has a spirit - fish and larvae,
too. Even the earth itself has a spirit. As to whether unborn children have a
spirit, I certainly felt my children's spirits when I was pregnant with them.
The spirit may not be entirely fused with the body until birth, but it's
certainly not absent.And this ruling is welcome not only because it
recognizes the zygote, embryo and fetus as an individual, but also because it
prevents the making of money off patents on human life. We can't legally sell
other human beings after they are born - that's slavery. We shouldn't be able to
sell other human beings before they are born, either.
A doctor who does stem cell research actually said that using your own cells
(from your back or skin) is far more efficient and effective than embryonic stem
cell research. Plus there is no question of ethics. Why not do that?And to answer the question about Republicans "flip-flopping", they
will probably emphasize the fact that a highly liberal place such as Europe is
even able to recognize the sanctity of life, from conception, then that's huge.
Well, this creates an interesting dilemma for Conservatives.For
years now they have been claiming that European law has no place in American
Courts.Now that there is a ruling they like, will they stick with
their original position, or will they flip?My guess is they will
flip for this issue but flop back again when it is something they don't like....
That is a fantastic ruling. That is something most of us know anyway. Stem
cell research has been going great with adult stem cells. So many new things
are coming up and none of them have to do with harming unborn babies.
Freedom-In-Danger | 8:16 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011 Christy: Does nurturing
a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would be a direct correlation
between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't.===========What?Which part of a pregnancy is nurturing time, and which
isn't?Do animals not move in utero? Do fish larvae not move? I'd
like to think I'll see my precious dog in Heaven, but does every fish have a
spirit? I am refuting the idea that a fetus moves because it has a
Christy: Does nurturing a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would
be a direct correlation between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't.
What pregnant women would say that their baby has no personality in the womb? In
fact, MANY studies have been done on the relationship to behavior in the womb to
later behaviors after birth. But I guess those are all wrong because you say
"What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?"The
mother's body nurturing the growing fetus is the 'force'. Animals
move in utero as well. Do animals have spirits? According to the Bible, thou
shalt not kill. This refers to humans, not animals. Fish larvae
The Supreme Court indicated that they are waiting for someone to define life at
conception so they could review Row vs. Wade. Some states have started the
process and maybe this action in Europe will accelerate the pace. I
don't think that Stem Cell research will actually be seriously affected. They
will just redouble their efforts to create stem cells from adult cells instead
of taking the simpler path of using embryos.
K, "What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?" is a
fascinating point to make. But your point regarding LDS Church doctrine is
without substance. 1- The LDS Church doesn't 'choose' doctrine 'based on
popularity' but teaches revelation. With that understanding, your phrasing could
have been different to adequately represent the Church's actual stances. 2- LDS
doctrine regards infants as perfect, without sin, etc. God would not condemn
them if they are indeed alive and if not, then it would be irrelevant. I'm just
missing your point regarding this...?Personally, IF an abortion is
underway and the unborn baby will not suffer any differently through the
procedure- then I accept stem cell research as morally acceptable.However, I do remember reading an article mentioning a Harvard finding
regarding adult stem cells and skin cells being proven to be able to be used for
the very same research as what stem cell research is currently doing. The only
difference was that it was at a much slower rate. However, if all moral issues
can be put aside by a skin test, I would ask "Why on Earth are we even
debating this anymore?" Just a thought...
No, life begins at conception. What force is moving the child in womb if not
spirit? This effects embryonic stem stell research. Can do what you
like with adult stem cells and cord blood. Every child born has cord blood.
Plenty of stem cells in there without needing to terminate pregnancy to get
them. And stem cells from those sources actually led to treatments. Leukemia for
instance is treated with cord blood or through living donor. There is cure or
remission. People should donate blood and blood products regularly if they are
medical able to donate.I was under the impression if a child died
before the age of baptism they would go directly to heaven and attain the
celestial kingdom. I thought that was what made the LDS church so attractive
compared to other faiths. No limbo for unbaptised babies?
From the article:"It is very much to be regretted that the
court has taken this view," said Sir Ian Wilmut from the MRC Centre for
Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh. "It will unfortunately make
it less likely that companies in Europe will invest in the research to develop
treatments to use embryonic stem cells for treatment of human diseases."-------Utilitarianism and Consequentialism can not be
applied to the question of whether something constitutes murder or not, which
potentially grants or denies life- as this is the ultimate factor in such a
question. 'Does an unborn fetus or child have an inherent right to life, as we
claim for ourselves?'If such an ethical paradigm was used to pass
such a judgement, then we must discard all inherent rights, such as freedom,
religion, speech, life, and so on for everyone else. (Thereby destroying any
such morality that could have existed). One cannot justify removing 'rights'
from a this moral issue as that is indeed the point in question. "IS there
a right?" Otherwise, human rights cease when others can demand based on
what they claim they need.My rights don't depend on others, they are
inherent to my existence.
What a shame that this ruling will affect stem cell research in Europe.
RE: Furry1993There is no church doctrine about the spirit joining
the body at birth,there is no church doctrine about drawing a a breath,Proxy ordinanaces are done for who have lived and died, and has noting
to do about breathing, the are simply performed for those have lived here.there is no official doctrine about babies lost before coming to term,
Please stop making stuff up to justify adhereing to a particular
view.Since this came from a socialist liberal court, according to
the left the decision must be correct.
Is this the end of in vitro-fertilization too?
To Portland Trail Blazers | 6:01 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011 You're right --
we always existed as spirits. We became mortal/human life when we were born and
our spirits joined the bodies creeted for us through pregnancy, which happened
at birth. That's why the vicarious ordinances of the LDS Church, available
only to those who have lived, can be performed only for people who have been
born and who have drawn at least one breath.The decision by the
European court is not well based.
God* instead of got
As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be. God created
every single human being on THIS Earth. We have always existed as spirits, but
got created our physical body.
Since "embryonic stem cell research is out of business", bring all
that "cutting-edge biotechnical research" to America!