Why didn’t you answer my question, dude? Do you think that the victim of the rape has some legitimate rights as well, or do you think that she is just a dead corpse that has an obligation to bear the child of a rapist whether she wants to or not?
Wow, amgid, I can’t believe what I’m reading! So your church teaches that a grave sin that can be repented of can be recommended by the local bishop (after prayer, of course)? Fornication can be repented of under LDS law too. Does your bishop ever counsel you to commit fornication? Probably not.
The victim of rape has the right to see her attacker brought to justice through the judiciary system of the day.
Don’t you see how this argument from “the rights of the mother” undercuts all your objections to abortion outside of the rape/incest context? Doesn’t a regular mother have “some legitimate rights” in her body, such that she can choose not to continue a pregnancy?
I think NDM is trying to say he’s not an LDS “scholar” (or officially recognized as such), though he’s certainly familiar with the current teachings. After speaking with him for about a year and a half now, I truly think that he believes what he speaks. I don’t believe he’s trying to “hide” anything, so I hope allegations of that will cease. If there’s something you think is going unmentioned…ask.
I certainly hope I have not offended him…I honestly don’t have a clue about Mormonism. I still would love to know what the differences in Mormonism and Catholicism are and why should I believe in M over C, in his opinion. Since I’m not sure they can both be true and if the true matters this would seem a crucial issue.
Yes, the victim of rape has legitimate rights, to answer your question. All “persons” under the constitution have legitimate and, theoretically equal, rights. However, one person’s “rights” are restricted when they interfere with another person’s rights. This is, of course, according to the laws of the US. God’s desire, and His directive to us, go beyond the law.
Hey, Paul, I’m lost… where do you get AMGID from?
I’m quite certain that Zerinus is the latest screen name for the poster who used to go by the name amgid. He was banned from this forum, and so came back under another name. His style of polemic and word usage is easily recognized.
Zerinus used to post here as amgid. EXTREMELY anti-catholic trying to lure the uninformed into LDS missionary opportunities. He got really embarassed when he was proven wrong on a point of some significance by using his own posted supporting documnents. He then resigned, disappeared for a bit and returned as zerinus. (love the A to Z thing)
Actually, Mormons and Christians do not worship the same god at all.
I think that she also has the right to refuse to carry through the terms of pregnancy that she was subject to against her wishes, and was in fact a violation of her most sacred and legitimate rights. She is not a dead corpse that she should be impregnated by anyone at will against her wishes, and she has no say in the outcome. That is my personal opinion.
I know that in Catholic theology that appear to be the case; but that is not so in LDS theology. The Bible states that some sins cannot be forgiven (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26-29). We believe that premeditated murder is one of those.
Self-defense is not murder. Even in civil law self-defense is not considered a punishable crime.
Self-defense is not a sin at all (provided reasonable force was used, and there was no premeditated desire to harm or kill). But abortion is a sin under most circumstances.
I fail to see your logic in that. If a couple have consensual sex (especially if they are married), and pregenency follows, that is a natural and expected consequence of the act, which should not be dodged. But if someone is impregnated against her wishes, and especially as a serious violations of her rights, she should have the right to refuse to carry it through if that is her wish. That is how I see it.
If you mean theological differences, they are many, and they couldn’t all be discussed in one thread. The question of which one you should join, however, is not really dependent on the “differences”. That depends ultimately on which one is the true, authorized, and authoritative representative of God on earth today. I believe that the LDS Church is, and that is why I am LDS.
Noted…so why would anyone else believe as you do? Why do you think that the LDS church is the true church and the CC isn’t.
So the new human life in her is no part of the morality of the act? I just don’t get this thought.
Perhaps you should look a little more closely; it’s a logical argument.
You have not answered the question - does the married woman have “rights” in her own body or not? Is she a corpse that no longer has rights? If you say yes she still has rights, you have to say abortion as a whole is not immoral if you want to be logically consistant. If you say no, you have to justify why the married woman lost her “rights”. It’s that simple. When you start talking “rights” talk, you have to establish a foundation for the rights (i.e., who gave her those rights). If you’re going to strip someone of their rights, you have to establish why the foundation is no longer present (i.e., who can take those rights away).
Let me see if I understand what you’re saying - if a woman’s rights not to be sexually assaulted is violated, and a separate act of conception occurs, she now has the “right” to kill the human being inside of her. How does that logically follow?