Morning after pill

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Surely your last sentence is a classic Waters trolling line.

No. I have been taught that over the pulpit more than once. The last time, by LDS Social Services in sacrament meeting.

Parents that don't encourage adopting are going against church authorities. That's how it is taught.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

If you're okay with birth control, I don't get why you're not okay with MAP. What's the difference btw that and in IUD? Or why is suspending ovulation through the pill much different. And yes, it even begins to extend to early abortions, too.

But what's really rich is how all you men are trying to tell hypothetical daughters what to do. See, you don't get to do that. Tough.

I agree with your first paragraph. Waters sees no moral distinction between the MAP and first trimester abortion. I see no moral distinction between IUD or even birth control and the MAP.

As to your second point, I would hope I wouldn't have to tell my daughters what to do. I hope they'd know what I'd want and rocommend.

In any event, I think sometimes people are too skittish about giving advice to young people. When I think back on my youth one thing I could have used more of is good practical wordly advice. I received tons of coersion but not the kind of advice I needed. Advice to young people is good if it's the right advice. The problem is, for too many parents, especially religious parents, it's all about the parents. They worry if it's their fault, what will people think, does this mean she won't turn out like them, blah blah blah. Not what this means to the child.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We are talking about ethical/moral reasoning. Which I have said before, Mormons (and most people) tend to not be able to do.

Sure it is a tough situation! Tell us something we don't know.

We are saying, how you do you ethically justify or not justify it?

Taking a pass on ethical thinking is not the same thing as wisdom. Sorry BG.

Loosen up your underpants a little, doc.

My point is that ethics can be situational even if you don't want them to be. Do you actually think that you would anlayze the scenario exactly the same way, with the same calcualtion, if you were reading this thread or if in 16 years your daughter is standing before you with tears in her eyes worried that she might be pregnant? If you do, then you are either fooling yourself or you are a sociopath. SO it is one thing to discuss the rationalization of religious or social policy positions, but it is another thing altogether to sit with your child and discuss options.

Personally, I am opposed to MAP, but I note that I have read (as ERCoug confirmed in this thread) that the regualr Pill can also prevent a fertilized ovum's uterine implantation. SO maybe my ethical reasoning is flawed. Abortion for rape doesn't bother me but then I wonder how far away is pregnancy following unprotected drunken sex where the law may reconize consent but the imapriment was so severe that, for me, I can't say my child was not impaired? You seem to equate ethical thinking and analysis with the ability to reach a balck/white conclusion. Maybe I am old and soft and stupid, but I just don't see it that way, at least not all the time and not here.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying he chooses to offer no thinking or reasoning on the issue.
...
If you can't make up your mind, fine. But you should be able to explain, in terms of the ethics, the pros and cons, and why you can't make up your mind.

The fact that he did not outline his thoughts on the matter should not be taken as implication that he has none. It is more likely an indication that he has a job.

With Creek being a naturally morally reflective person, as well as one who constructs arguments by trade, I'm thinking it's a pretty safe bet that he is perfectly capable of explaining and defending his reasoning if necessary.

Personally, I think you know that and you're simply trolling for creek.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Exact same argument that NARAL makes by the way.

The philosophy makes sense but the application differs from mine.

Case in point, to the best of my knowledge and I could be fooled but in this case I don't believe so by virtue of the fact that my daughters have always eagerly sought TRs and don't seem as if they are deceiving, my children live according to the dictates of our culture concerning sex. We have taught refraining before marriage and they appear to comply.

I doubt NARAL necessarily does that. My point is, I can identify with parents not wishing to compound what in our culture is already traumatic, with the hassles of an unwanted pregnancy, especially in light of IUDs and RU486. My ethics don't prevent that and the Church has not forbidden this to remain in good standing.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

So the question here in having an abortion or not comes down to accepting responsibility, not whether a life is being taken? Your response is as close as it comes to probably what the churches real stance is.

No one yet has provided anything definitive as to why the church is anti-abortion.

The church has no theological/moral/ethical position on abortion, despite it arguably being the most important moral question of our time.

Instead of thinking the church has whiffed, or that God doesn't care about abortion, maybe we can take it as an invitation by God to make up our own minds, and be responsible, in the eternities, for the decisions we have made.

A girl that I grew up with in my ward had an abortion. (per a common friend, so might not be true). I do know she was ex-communicated. Maybe for that issue, but there were other issues as well. Sad to see all this happen to her. Dead-end job, kids out of wedlock, complete loser boyfriend, unhappy. She just didn't believe that she deserved anything better.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Well, the church teaches that parents should STRONGLY counsel daughters to give up the child for adoption, to LDS Social Services.

And that if parents do not, they are sinning.

But we are not talking about a confimred pregnancy are we? We are talking about the termination of a possible pregnancy. Not the same thing.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

No. I have been taught that over the pulpit more than once. The last time, by LDS Social Services in sacrament meeting.

Parents that don't encourage adopting are going against church authorities. That's how it is taught.

I guess I don't think going against church authorities is a sin. For instance, my wife and I practiced birth control in the 70's and didn't feel like we were sinning. The churches current stance on birth control vindicates that feeling.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

But we are not talking about a confimred pregnancy are we? We are talking about the termination of a possible pregnancy. Not the same thing.

Correct.

So if a person engages in reckless unprotected sex, is it ethically required to promote pregnancy?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church has no theological/moral/ethical position on abortion, despite it arguably being the most important moral question of our time.

Instead of thinking the church has whiffed, or that God doesn't care about abortion, maybe we can take it as an invitation by God to make up our own minds, and be responsible, in the eternities, for the decisions we have made.

A girl that I grew up with in my ward had an abortion. (per a common friend, so might not be true). I do know she was ex-communicated. Maybe for that issue, but there were other issues as well. Sad to see all this happen to her. Dead-end job, kids out of wedlock, complete loser boyfriend, unhappy. She just didn't believe that she deserved anything better.

Well, I don't really keep up on these things as I don't attend Sunday School and my Priesthood age group is to old to worry about pregnancy. However, I haven't heard abortion discussed doctrinally from the pulpit for years. However, I get a strong sense we are anti-abortion and not neutral on the issue.