Mormon pro-life? Hardly.

[Stephen168]

Mormons raise the fallacy of composition quit often to justify times when the Mormon Church declares a class of humanity as less than equal to the rest of humanity. On this thread it came as quickly as post #4, the first Mormon post. It has been repeated by every Mormon poster so far

(see posts #14, #34, #47, #60)

 

[dianaiad]

(see posts #14, #34, #47, #60)

Actually, the fallacy of composition (a class of fallacy that contains the ‘True Scott’ fallacy) Is being commited by you guys.

After all, it is you who are insisting that no Catholic would have an abortion, even though Catholic women obviously DO.

Just as Catholics lie, cheat, steal and commit murder…all sorts of venial and mortal sins are committed by Catholics. That’s why y’all HAVE confession and absolution available for those Catholics who sin, so that they can be in a ‘state of grace’ and be ready to take communion.

Because people sin.

Yes, even Catholics–and sinning Catholics are still Catholics. That’s why they CAN go to confession and recieve absolution; because they ARE Catholics.

 

[benidict]

Actually, the fallacy of composition (a class of fallacy that contains the ‘True Scott’ fallacy) Is being commited by you guys.

After all, it is you who are insisting that no Catholic would have an abortion, even though Catholic women obviously DO.

Just as Catholics lie, cheat, steal and commit murder…all sorts of venial and mortal sins are committed by Catholics. That’s why y’all HAVE confession and absolution available for those Catholics who sin, so that they can be in a ‘state of grace’ and be ready to take communion.

Because people sin.

Yes, even Catholics–and sinning Catholics are still Catholics. That’s why they CAN go to confession and recieve absolution; because they ARE Catholics.

very well thought out response i applaud you diana.:clapping:

 

[Stephen168]

very well thought out response i applaud you diana.:clapping:

It is well thought out and pointless.
The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: Catholics do not have abortions.
Mormon: I know a catholic who had an abortion.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would have an abortion.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church. Even though I find it hard to believe a true Catholic would find them selves having an abortion in the heat of passion, I can see Dianaid’s point.

BUT the ‘no true scot’ fallacy has nothing to do with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is to assume what is true for a part is true for the whole group. This is the fallacy that Mormons use to attack the teaching of the Catholic Church in a fallacious attempt to justify the teaching of the Mormon Church. For example:
Catholic: The Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years that it is a sin to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: I know a Catholic girl who had an abortion, so the Catholic Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.
A Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.)
Another example closer to this thread:
Catholic: The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: More Catholics have abortions than Mormons, so the Catholic Church is worse than the Mormon Church.
Again, a Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.) And an individual Mormon’s actions do not change the teaching of the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder unborn babies. The Catholic Church continues to teach, as it has for 2000 years, that it is wrong to murder unborn babies. What an individual Mormon or Catholic believes, or does, will not change these facts. Mormons can not defend the sinful teaching of their Church, all they can do it attack the behavior of individual Catholics to make them selves feel better about their Church. It is a fallacious argument but all they have. (see posts #4, #14, #34, #47, #60)

 

[ParkerD]

It is well thought out and pointless.
The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: Catholics do not have abortions.
Mormon: I know a catholic who had an abortion.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would have an abortion.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church. Even though I find it hard to believe a true Catholic would find them selves having an abortion in the heat of passion, I can see Dianaid’s point.

BUT the ‘no true scot’ fallacy has nothing to do with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is to assume what is true for a part is true for the whole group. This is the fallacy that Mormons use to attack the teaching of the Catholic Church in a fallacious attempt to justify the teaching of the Mormon Church. For example:
Catholic: The Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years that it is a sin to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: I know a Catholic girl who had an abortion, so the Catholic Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.
A Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.)
Another example closer to this thread:
Catholic: The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: More Catholics have abortions than Mormons, so the Catholic Church is worse than the Mormon Church.
Again, a Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.) And an individual Mormon’s actions do not change the teaching of the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder unborn babies. The Catholic Church continues to teach, as it has for 2000 years, that it is wrong to murder unborn babies. What an individual Mormon or Catholic believes, or does, will not change these facts. Mormons can not defend the sinful teaching of their Church, all they can do it attack the behavior of individual Catholics to make them selves feel better about their Church. It is a fallacious argument but all they have. (see posts #4, #14, #34, #47, #60)

I have of course not liked this thread, and hope this is my last post as there are those who bring such little empathy for others to their comments that it seems like a hopeless case here, mostly.

Mormons believe in moral agency and individual accountability. They also believe that although governments are imperfect, definitely, the laws are to be obeyed and when bad laws are passed that they should be legally opposed through constitutional means. United States laws define “murder” in certain ways, which do not encompass what has been stated above. The RCC is its own “country”, and can create its own laws within the framework of its status as a “country.” People who can’t see that difference and its impact have little understanding of constitutional governments.

What I cannot understand from a post such as the above, is the idea that comes across that a young woman or woman simply chose on her own to become pregnant or that God placed a baby in her womb and no one else was involved. What it shows to me is that the idea of a double standard in society has been perpetuated within such a teaching as is espoused by the kind of post above. The young woman is treated as an evil person with a horrible crime on her head, and not one mention of the other part of the situation wherein it took two to tango.

I think Dianaiad has shown remarkable composure in trying to objectively address this subject, but how in the world any leader or member of the Catholic church can look at statistical results about abortion within their membership and say “we’re doing such a good job” when the statistics say otherwise, is completely kidding themselves. The men are the guilty party, the root of the problem, and so also is that anywhere in the world where marriage in the Catholic church costs money (whether by tradition, practice, or expectation), the wool is over the leaders’ eyes as to underlying root causes of abortions by young women.

 

[TheosisM]

What I cannot understand from a post such as the above, is the idea that comes across that a young woman or woman simply chose on her own to become pregnant or that God placed a baby in her womb and no one else was involved. What it shows to me is that the idea of a double standard in society has been perpetuated within such a teaching as is espoused by the kind of post above. The young woman is treated as an evil person with a horrible crime on her head, and not one mention of the other part of the situation wherein it took two to tango.

Obviously no Catholic is ignorant of the fact that it took “two to tango”, and/or ignores the male involved. The issue here is that we see choosing to have an abortion as choosing to kill someone. The fact is that not only would the mother be disciplined, but the father as well, as would the physician and nursing staff involved if they were Catholic as well, hence why abortions are not performed in Catholic hospitals. And of course forgiveness through Jesus Christ is always possible here. The woman is never considered to be alone in this.

I think Dianaiad has shown remarkable composure in trying to objectively address this subject, but how in the world any leader or member of the Catholic church can look at statistical results about abortion within their membership and say “we’re doing such a good job” when the statistics say otherwise, is completely kidding themselves. The men are the guilty party, the root of the problem, and so also is that anywhere in the world where marriage in the Catholic church costs money (whether by tradition, practice, or expectation), the wool is over the leaders’ eyes as to underlying root causes of abortions by young women.

What does marriage costing money have to do with anything? A gift to the parish is asked for to cover the costs for various parts of the ceremony (flowers, choir, etc), however if the couple cannot afford anything, the parish/diocese will not forbid the couple from partaking in the sacrament of matrimony. Money will never stop anyone from partaking in any of the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Where did any leader or member of the Catholic Church dismiss the statistics given? It upsets many of us. I simply do not see any reason to believe that there is a correlation between being completely pro-life and having a higher rate of abortion (I’ve seen this sort of argument here and on MADB). Instead, I can see a correlation between the statistic, the percentage of active Catholics, percentage of Catholics that go to confession, etc. I’d venture to say that the USA Catholic Church has a higher percentage of “cultural Catholics”/“Catholics in name”/“cafeteria Catholics” than the USA LDS church has of the equivalent.

As Stephen has emphasized, what they were talking about here was that the LDS church, as an official policy allows abortion in certain situations, and the Catholic Church, as an official policy never does. In practice, Mormons are pro-life, and I know that Catholics and Mormons have worked together on that. All that is being said, at least by me, is that it is illogical to believe that there is a correlation between the Catholic view on abortion, and the statistics among USA Catholics. What Stephen is saying is that it is erroneous to equate the actions of the part with the views and official doctrine of the whole.

 

[Catholic20064]

Actually, the fallacy of composition (a class of fallacy that contains the ‘True Scott’ fallacy) Is being commited by you guys.

After all, it is you who are insisting that no Catholic would have an abortion, even though Catholic women obviously DO.

Just as Catholics lie, cheat, steal and commit murder…all sorts of venial and mortal sins are committed by Catholics. That’s why y’all HAVE confession and absolution available for those Catholics who sin, so that they can be in a ‘state of grace’ and be ready to take communion.

Because people sin.

Yes, even Catholics–and sinning Catholics are still Catholics. That’s why they CAN go to confession and recieve absolution; because they ARE Catholics.

I certainly never said anything to the effect that no Catholic woman would have an abortion. My concern is the official stance of each church in regards to abortion. If a certain number of Catholics have abortions against the official stance of the church that is not the fault of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Mormon women can justify an abortion in agreement with the official policy of the Mormon Church. That Mormonism justifies the murder of unborn children is unconscionable.

 

[crazzeto]

We believe in continuous revelation…but that said, the basics stay the same.

but I guess we are talking past each other.

As long as you are comfortable with the idea that as long as ON PAPER, Catholics will never have an abortion for any reason, even when the abortion (murder of the unborn) rate for Catholics is so much higher than for the group you are calling a bunch of murderers, then fine.

Hypocrisy is an ugly word…and an uglier reality.

Continous revelation is just away to try and claim that God can change his mind, but he doesn’t. No one said that “on paper Catholics will never have an abortion case”. We all know that in reality, members of the Church do have abortions. What comforts me is:

1. This is always viewed as consitnatly wrong by the Church. God doesn’t change his mind, ever.
2. The Chruch will do everything in it’s power to prevent any abortion from occuring.
3. When they do happen, the Church will do everything to reconcile the individaul with God, to heal the wounds.
4. Once the task of healing the individual is done, it will again try and reinforce the idea in their mind and everyone else, that abortion simply put should not happen ever.

Where as in LDS, it’s

1. it’s between you and God, do what you want

 

[Stephen168]

What I cannot understand from a post such as the above, is the idea that comes across that a young woman or woman simply chose on her own to become pregnant or that God placed a baby in her womb and no one else was involved. What it shows to me is that the idea of a double standard in society has been perpetuated within such a teaching as is espoused by the kind of post above. The young woman is treated as an evil person with a horrible crime on her head, and not one mention of the other part of the situation wherein it took two to tango.

This paragraph like 99% of your post is not a response to anything I said in the post you quoted. Where babies come from has nothing to do with the Mormon teaching it is OK to murder them. Which brings me to the 1% that does reference the quoted post:

United States laws define “murder” in certain ways, which do not encompass what has been stated above.

There are three ways in which a human being ends up dead: Murder, Accident or Self defense. Murder is the killing of an innocent person, which applies above. Yes, there are other words we use for murder depending who we are murdering: infants, Mothers, self, unborn, or brothers, etc.; but they are all murder. Calling it abortion doesn’t change the fact The Mormon Church teaches murder of an unborn is OK.

On a side note: Continuing with this fallacy after being corrected shows a bit of dishonesty on your part.

also is that anywhere in the world where marriage in the Catholic church costs money

I had already told you it does not cost money to get married in the Catholic Church. This is also true of baptism, anointing of the sick, baptism, or funerals. Which reminds me; you never answered my question in post #58.
And another:

The men are the guilty party,…

only as far as they perform abortions. Unless Mormons don’t think of children as a blessing; and must find someone guilty of pregnancy.

 

[Xavierlives]

There are three ways in which a human being ends up dead: Murder, Accident or Self defense. Murder is the killing of an innocent person, which applies above. Yes, there are other words we use for murder depending who we are murdering: infants, Mothers, self, unborn, or brothers, etc.; but they are all murder. Calling it abortion doesn’t change the fact The Mormon Church teaches murder of an unborn is OK.

Not to throw a monkey wrench into this monkey business, but death by natural causes is not Murder, Accident or Self defense.

Other than that… carry on.

Oh, one thing: How can someone be “pro-life” and “pro-capital punishment?” Oh nevermind, that is too much of a monkey wrench.

 

[Catholic20064]

Did someone really say it doesn’t cost money to get married in the Mormon Church?

Last I knew if you didn’t give the Mormon Church 10% of your salary you couldn’t get a temple marriage in the Mormon Church.

 

[Xavierlives]

Did someone really say it doesn’t cost money to get married in the Mormon Church?

Last I knew if you didn’t give the Mormon Church 10% of your salary you couldn’t get a temple marriage in the Mormon Church.

I could be wrong here, but you have to pay delinquent tithes too.

 

[Catholic20064]

I could be wrong here, but you have to pay delinquent tithes too.

I think you would be wrong about that. You can not pay, start paying, and be fine.

 

[ParkerD]

Did someone really say it doesn’t cost money to get married in the Mormon Church?

Last I knew if you didn’t give the Mormon Church 10% of your salary you couldn’t get a temple marriage in the Mormon Church.

Catholic20064,
If you’re referring to the comment I had made which posed the issue of cost because of what I had heard from missionaries about those who needed to be married before they could be baptized, then it would be important to understand that there is no cost of course when any couple is married civilly by an LDS bishop, and that would of course be the kind of a case if a young couple gets married “in an emergency.” They would have such a marriage usually in the home of one of the parents of the couple. Tithing would not be an issue at all.

Then, too, LDS bishops perform civil marriages for non-LDS as well. I personally know of a few such cases. Nor do they ask if the marriage is out of immediate necessity. They encourage the couple to be faithful to their marriage covenant, honor their vows with fidelity, and build a loving and happy home as a complete family.

 

[dianaiad]

It is well thought out and pointless.
The ‘no true scot’ fallacy is when a term is suddenly changed to advance the argument. For example:
Catholic: Catholics do not have abortions.
Mormon: I know a catholic who had an abortion.
Catholic: Well ‘no true Catholic’ would have an abortion.
The Catholic suddenly changes the definition of Catholic to advance their argument. When a term is known in advance the fallacy does not apply: No true Catholic would reject the Pope as the head of the Church. Almost by definition a Catholic is one who accepts the Pope as the head of the Church. Even though I find it hard to believe a true Catholic would find them selves having an abortion in the heat of passion, I can see Dianaid’s point.

BUT the ‘no true scot’ fallacy has nothing to do with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is to assume what is true for a part is true for the whole group.

Yes…but as you will note in my post, this fallacy is paired with it’s very close companion, the fallacy of division (or True Scot.) They are in that ‘family’ of fallacies of composition, which is why I wrote that True Scot is included in this. It is. It is the other side of the coin.

I am not, after all, claiming that all Catholics have abortions. I am saying that more Catholics have abortions, relatively, than do Mormons. This is true. My debate opponents are claiming that Catholicism preaches against abortion, then any Catholic who has one is no true Catholic. This fallacious claim doesn’t make MY claim invalid, y’know.

The Fallacy of Composition states that if on This is the fallacy that Mormons use to attack the teaching of the Catholic Church in a fallacious attempt to justify the teaching of the Mormon Church. For example:
Catholic: The Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years that it is a sin to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: I know a Catholic girl who had an abortion, so the Catholic Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.

You would have a point, if I’d made that claim. However, I didn’t make that claim. I wrote that Catholics have three times more abortions than Mormons do, relative to the populations of both faiths. This is undeniable fact, supported by every single study I’ve read so far…and frankly, that’s being kind.

Of course, that’s almost worse…it’s saying that you guys don’t practice what you preach, and there is a rather nasty word for that.

A Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.)
Another example closer to this thread:
Catholic: The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder an unborn baby.
Mormon: More Catholics have abortions than Mormons, so the Catholic Church is worse than the Mormon Church.

Yep…but you are assuming that this response is based upon the relative teachings. As I have just shown you, it isn’t. Certainly I have not made the claim here that the Catholics teach that abortion is just fine.

What I HAVE written is that if the goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions, and if the ‘proof is in the pudding,’ so to speak, the Mormons are doing a much better job at getting rid of abortion than the Catholics are–and therefore the Catholics should not criticize LDS doctrine OR practice until your abortion rate is a whole bunch lower than it actually is.

Y’see, what we do works. What you do doesn’t. The ‘fruits’ show which group is actually more ‘pro-life…’ it’s the one that actually saves the lives.
Stephen168;6021393:

Again, a Catholic’s actions do not change the teaching of the Catholic Church. The part (an individual Catholic action) is not true of the whole (teaching of the Catholic Church.) And an individual Mormon’s actions do not change the teaching of the Mormon Church.

Except that the Catholics are ignoring yours, and we live by ours…and thus a lot more Mormon babies are seeing their birthdays than Catholic babies are, relatively speaking. See, that’s my problem with people who criticize Mormons for being pro-abortion; the numbers simply do not add up for you.

The Mormon Church teaches it is OK to murder unborn babies. The Catholic Church continues to teach, as it has for 2000 years, that it is wrong to murder unborn babies. What an individual Mormon or Catholic believes, or does, will not change these facts. Mormons can not defend the sinful teaching of their Church, all they can do it attack the behavior of individual Catholics to make them selves feel better about their Church. It is a fallacious argument but all they have. (see posts #4, #14, #34, #47, #60)

Except of course that those posts do not commit the fallacy of composition. You were commiting eisegesis by claiming this.

 

[dianaiad]

I certainly never said anything to the effect that no Catholic woman would have an abortion.

that’s the general ‘you.’ You certainly cannot claim that other people in this thread who have been critical of the LDS stance on this have not said precisely that.

My concern is the official stance of each church in regards to abortion. If a certain number of Catholics have abortions against the official stance of the church that is not the fault of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Mormon women can justify an abortion in agreement with the official policy of the Mormon Church. That Mormonism justifies the murder of unborn children is unconscionable.

That the Catholic policy of ‘no abortion whatsoever for any reason whatsoever’ seems to result in Catholics having abortions at three times the rate Mormons do is far more to the point, m’friend.

Y’see, when a Mormon woman has an abortion, it is only after soul searching, prayer, consutation with her religious leaders who send her to medical authorities; it really IS a case of the death of the baby or the death of both, or something equally drastic. When it is done, the woman has the support of her family and her faith, and it is seen as the incredible tragedy that the loss of a child actually is. We know, in other words, exactly what we are doing, and that it IS the death of a child. It is, in almost all cases, a matter of the child dies now or both mother and child die soon.

I don’t think that the Catholic women who have abortions have that part figured out. At most, they see it–not as the death of a child, but as a ‘mortal sin’ that can be forgiven and then forgotten in the confession/absolution process.

We LDS types may understand that sometimes there’s no choice–but we never forget exactly what is at stake…and that’s why we have a bunch fewer of them than you guys do.

 

[vickimonica]

If you want to talk numbers, fine.

My mother was 1 of 13 children. My father was 1 of 2. I have 3 siblings, I have 1 child, 1 grandchild, 8 nieces and nephews, cousins too numerous to mention, and the same for great nieces and nephews. I should also add here that due to the depression, my mother and many of her siblings were put in an orphanage, and ultimately adopted. That raises the number of Aunts, Uncles, and Cousins considerably. But I have limited my numbers to only blood relatives.

Yes, there have been congenital birth issues among the family, ranging from childhood arthritis, to the need for kidney and heart transplants. There have also been several adoptions,

Not an abortion among them, and only 1 divorce.

What’s your point?

What I am reminded of is a young couple in our area a few years ago. They hadn’t been married long, and were expecting their first child. All seemed to be going well, until one of the ultrasounds revealed that the child was anacephalic. (No brain, only a partial brain stem) Once the couple learned of this, they were given the option to terminate the pregnancy. They flat out refused. The mother carried the child to full term, delivered the baby, only to hold him for a few minutes until he passed away.

Does that cover your thoughts on talking the talk, and walking the walk? I think it does.

In case you are wondering, Yes, they were a Catholic family.

 

[vickimonica]

“Not an abortion among them” – How do you know. Not everyone who has an abortion tells…

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps Mormons think the strict teaching on abortion in the Didache came from an apostate church. That’s why it was necessary to restore the true teaching on abortion.

It seems like most Mormon ‘revelations’ are dependant on which way the political winds are blowing not on what is truly moral. The Catholic Church maintaining its teaching against the murder of unborn children for 2000 years is one of the many reasons I know it is the true Church of Christ.

 

[Lehi]

Regardless of what LDS policy is, the LDS people by and large are FAR more likely to be pro-life than Catholics are, according to a June 2008 Pew Forum survey. This perhaps says far more about the effectiveness of each organization in the pro-life fight than anecdotal exceptions to the rule or studying each organizations official statements under a microscope.

Mormons sided against abortion 70/27, while Catholics sided with abortion 48/45.

patheos.com/Lenses/Snapshots.html