Conference tecrus::mormonism

    re: -1
    
    Steve,
    
    Interesting comments...
    
    I can see the parallels in your statement. Concerning abortions, in the
    near future, perhaps within 2 to 3 years, the FDA may be looking at 
    the French "abortion pill" which is being used in France, with, as I 
    understand, wide success. Let's assume that this drug is approved and
    becomes widely used in the US. I can see where there might be a similar
    scenerio where women might feel "forced" not to bear children. The
    social stigma aspect, you know. I feel sad in that in the process of
    "liberation" women might be entering a new type of "slavery". A clever
    and subtle way for the adversary to destroy the family, our most
    sacred institution.
    
    Kevin............... 

    A recent discussion on abortion has left me a little confused.  Perhaps
    someone can answer.  What is the Pro life, Pro Abortion and Pro choice 
    positions?  I thought it was like this:
    
    Pro LIfe = never, ever abort a fetus, no matter how it was conceived.
    Pro Abortion = abort whenever and for whatever the reasons.
    Pro Choice = a woman should have the choice to abort or not
    
    If I am wrong, please correct me.
    
    The reason I ask is that the Church's position is that children are a
    blessing from God and that as part of the Plan of Salvation, we partake
    of heavenly blessings and fulfill the plan when we have children (thus, 
    why Mormons have large families).  Abortion is usuall grounds for 
    excommunication except for when conception was caused by incest or rape 
    or necessary to preserve the mother's life.  I have heard
    some say that this postion is really a Pro Choice one.
    
    Any comments anyone?
                 

    I've always thought that "Pro Choice" was a redefinition of 
    "Pro Abortion" that takes away the stigma of what an abortion is.
    That is, abortionists don't portend that women should have abortions,
    only that they should be able to have them if they desire.  Add to that
    the concept that since it is a right the state should protect
    (subsidize) the right.  It is, in my opinion, an idiomatic label,
    similar to what "gay" is for homosexuals.  Just as being homosexual
    may or may not make a person gay (merry or lighthearted) having an
    abortion may or may not make a person feel as though they are
    exercising inalienable rights.  I note that the "Pro Choice" movemement
    focuses exclusively upon the right of women to have abortions and not
    on other rights of choice.  It just makes it sound better to describe it 
    indirectly than to go into graphic detail.
    
    
    Steve

	RE: 345.2
    
>    Pro LIfe = never, ever abort a fetus, no matter how it was conceived.
>    Pro Abortion = abort whenever and for whatever the reasons.
>    Pro Choice = a woman should have the choice to abort or not
    
	Yes, that is how I see the terms.  However, the media likes to
	combine the last two into one.  This is a misnomer.  There are
	many "pro-choice" people who are against abortion. I guess you
	could say that I would be one, but only because I very strongly
	support the agency of man.  Otherwise, I would just be Pro Life.

	Charles

There seems to be growing sentiment (in this country especially) that 
no one is really responsible for their own actions. It is society's 
fault, the culture's fault, the government's fault, etc. The trend is to 
abrogate personal responsibility whenever a finger can be pointed to 
someone else, usually the government.

The words "forced to" imply that the action was beyond the control of the 
individual, therefore they should not be held responsible for the action, 
in fact, it further implies that something or someone else *is* 
responsible, and that raises the spectre of yet another "problem" that 
our benificent liberal politicians can save us from at the expense of tax 
payers wallets.

It's a neat ideology that, if allowed to fully extend itself throughout 
our society, will bring us to the very brink of collapse.

Will women begin to say they are being "forced" to have abortions? They 
already have been telling us that poor women will be "forced" to turn to 
"back street" abortionists if public funding for elective abortions is 
not provided, or (Shock! Horror!) the abortion laws should ever tighten 
up. So they're already using the "forced to" argument in regards to 
abortions as it is, just in a little different context than your 
question.

Our society has lost sight of the interconnection between behavior and 
values, and has actively tried to accomodate people's craving for self 
indulgence without having to pay the price for their actions. "Let me do 
what I darn well feel like, and then provide for me when the bill comes 
due." As long as we have politicians who will cater to this mindset, and 
people who look no further than next week, we will continue this downward
slide. Where we end up is anyone's guess. Anarchy, maybe?

Ed

    
    re: -1
    
    Ed,
    
    I share your concerns on this. Maybe I am a bit callous but, it seems
    to me that in most cases (except rape or incest, or the like) the act
    that results in this situation is voluntary, ie a bit of judgment is
    being used prior to the act. Isn't there just a bit of responsibility
    on the part of both parties in the result of the sex act. It seems that
    we as a culture consider this act as a "right" without regard to the
    outcome and the responsibilities tha arise from it. I, for one believe
    in women's rights, and for that matter men's also. But with it, comes
    responsibilities, which leads to your statements.  We seem to think
    that the individual is somehow blameless, that individual responsi-
    bility doesn't follow the act. I agree, with you, that this trend will
    lead to much misery down the road for us as a country where individuals
    are transferring their own responsibilities to the state. My assumption
    here of course is that the unborn child is sacred and should be treated
    as the rest of us, ie. has constitutional rights.  Of course, this is
    a separate area of discussion. 
    
    I would like to hear others comment on this. Perhaps some of the women
    in this conference might respond.
    
    Kevin.........
    
    

    Ed,
    
    I can agree with your position on abortion!  My opinion is that the
    solution to abortion (and AIDS also) is living Christ's law regarding 
    chastity and lust.  Yet, I do not ever hear anyone ever propose good
    ole fashioned sexual morality as an answer.  I wonder if society has 
    de-sensitized (and really only isa kidding) itself with words 
    like "sexually active", "sexual partner", etc. so as to make it feel less 
    guilty when Judaeo-Christian beliefs around sexual purity are abandoned.  
    I get the impression that through use of these terms then really sex 
    becomes nothing more than a bodily function and fetuses are really only 
    "tissue" which of course we can get rid of.
    
    I can understand the Pro Choice position in terms of saying that an
    individual should have a choice over what happens to their body. The 
    choice is whether to engage in sex or not.  I believe that when
    conception has occurred the result of the choice has taken its natural
    path, and that choice is over.
    
    Just my thoughts and opinions.
    
    Paul
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

One of the key issues concerning abortion is whether an embryo or a fetus
is a person or not.  From the religious view, a person is a body plus a spirit,
so the question is "Has a spirit entered the embryo or the fetus prior to the
abortion?"  If not, then the abortion is only the removal of tissue, regardless
of how human-like the tissue appears.  If so, then the abortion is murder.

When does an embryo or a fetus become a person?  Science doesn't know.  The
Courts don't know.  NOW doesn't know.  I don't know, and as far as I understand
them, the scriptures don't say.  I'm not aware of our Latter-day prophets
saying when the spirit enters, so I would speculate that they don't know.

My attitude toward abortion is that I don't know if it is murder or not.
Maybe so, maybe not.  Since it could be and I'm not sure, I'm not willing to
take the chance, and therefore I'm against abortion.

However, the question can't be answered in such simple terms.  Let's assume
abortion is murder.  Ok, how about abortion in the case of rape and incest?
Is it ok to murder the result of rape and incest?  If not, then abortions
shouldn't be allowed for those cases.  If so, then where do we draw the line.
Which life-forms can be murdered and which ones can't?

Hmmmmmm.....     As I see it, the question of when life begins is all 
important.  My thinking is slowly going toward the viewpoint that abortions
are either acceptable for any reason or they're not acceptable for any reason
at all; murder is that serious.

Allen

	RE: Note 345.8 

>I'm not aware of our Latter-day prophets
>saying when the spirit enters, so I would speculate that they don't know.

	Spencer W. Kimble did not speculate as to when the spirit enters.  
	However, he did say abortion is "next to murder,"  and he set
	some stringent quidelines around aborition and church membership.

	Charles

    
    
    re: .8 and .9
    
    My feeling on this is similar....I don't know when the spirit enters
    but feel that the unborn child should be given the benefit of the doubt
    and spared. Charles, I'm glad you brought out the quote of Pres.
    Kimball. It certainly sets the tone of what this act really is, and
    the seriousness of it. I would add my own statement. "A measure of the
    value a society places on human life is how it treats it's children;
    both born and unborn" 
    
    Kevin.........
     

    
    I agree - I don't know when the spirit enters the body, but IMHO, I
    feel that life "begins" when the egg is fertilized. 
    
    Generally, I would say that I am "Pro-Choice", but not in the same
    context as is presently used.  I use it in the context of free agency.
    I feel that a person has a right to do to their body what they wish - 
    as long as what they want to do doesn't break any of commandments/laws
    of God or man.  I have control of my body and can do with it what I
    will, but I have a moral obligation to take care of it and to use it
    for good.  I have an obligation to my wife, my family, my church, and
    to my Heavenly Father not to abuse it or make immoral use of it.
    
    If someone engages in pre-marital sex and the girl is pregnant, I 
    feel that they should accept the consequences of their decision to 
    engage in pre-marital sex.  The baby didn't make any mistakes and 
    (rightly so) shouldn't have to suffer for the mistakes of their parents.   
    
    Life is made up of choices.  We make desicisions and must accept
    the consequences of those decisions.  You don't just suddenly get
    the issue of abortion thrown at you.  It begins way in the past by
    making the decision to "follow the crowd", look at pornographic 
    materials, neck, pet, etc.  Each of these little decisions
    contributed to the current choice of to abort or not.  You begin
    to fight the abortion by starting at the beginning of the decision-
    making process - by teaching your children to live the Gospel.
    It is easier to make difficult decisions if you make that decision
    before your are really in such a situation.  Imagine the situation,
    and then consciously make the correct decision.  Later when you are
    in that situation, it will be easier to make the right decision
    because you decided ahead of time what your decision will be.  
    Granted no major decisions are easy, but I feel that abortion is a
    synonm for murder - the taking of an innocent life (you don't
    get much more innocent than a baby).  
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank

     
    Moving on a little bit, I think that abortion has (unfortunately) moved
    from a moral issue to a social one.  We all agree (including those in NOW)
    that it is immoral to take an innocent life.  I personally am approaching
    the subject from the religious/moral side, but I still have to try to 
    understand how others look at it from the social aspect.
    
    Some of the reasons why some choose to abort:
    
    - I'm not ready to be a mother/father
    - I am not making enough to support a family
    - I'm not ready for marriage (especially a quick one)
    - My partner is not my type to settle down with
    - What will this do to my reputation (shame, disgrace, etc)
    - I won't get to finish college
    - etc, etc.
    
    When people suddenly find themselves in this situation, they aren't
    looking at it from outside - and seeing it from a moral right/wrong
    perspective.  Their (probably spontaneous) decision to have pre-marital 
    sex will change their lives permanently - whether they decide to abort
    or not and they are frightened.  They have made a decision and will
    now have to live with the consequences of that decision.  If they 
    decide to abort, they have taken an innocent life.  If they decide 
    not to abort, things will be financially tough for a while, but at 
    least the haven't murdered.  I really respect someone when they have 
    made the decision to keep the child and accept the consequences.  
    To me, these are the unsung heroes who made a mistake and are willing 
    to accept the consequences and try to make the best of it.  It takes 
    real courage to decide to keep the baby and then to raise that child 
    - usually as a single parent (which makes it even more difficult).
    
    Regarding the Church's stand on abortion, I know that membership in 
    the Church of Jesus of Latter-Day Saints will be denied to those who
    have either had an abortion themselves or assisted in an abortion.
    I know this because my wife (a former nurse) was asked this during
    her pre-membership interview.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank

    I know of a member of the church who had an abortion in her youth. When
    these discussions come up, I often think of her. In my opinion, she has
    suffered greatly because of this mistake, and has fully repented. 

    Those who find themselves in this situation are wounded anew each time
    they hear the subject come up.  I submit that it is not for us to judge
    them as murderers, but to help them fully repent, as well as to try to
    prevent others from making this terrible mistake. A girl pregnant out
    of wedlock feels so alone, and so unworthy, and is so vulnerable to the
    suggestions of others. We must be there to help and strengthen them, to
    let them know that they are not alone, to help them begin to make right
    choices.

    I do not condone abortion, but I do take comfort from the Church's
    official stand on this question for this sister and others who wish to
    repent of this sin. Paraphrasing from the General Handbook of
    Instructions, I understand the Church's position to be the following:

    1- Abortion is one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this
    day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. 
    The only exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape
    or incest, the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy, or the
    fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to
    survive beyond birth.  Even in these cases, couples should consider an
    abortion only after consulting their bishop and receiving divine
    confirmation through prayer.  

    2- As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for
    the sin of abortion.

    3- Church disciplinary councils are mandatory in the case of murder,
    however, abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. A church
    disciplinary council MAY be necessary for members who submit to,
    perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for abortions. 

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

        Re: Note 345.12 by MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY

    Hi Frank,

>   Regarding the Church's stand on abortion, I know that membership in 
>   the Church of Jesus of Latter-Day Saints will be denied to those who
>   have either had an abortion themselves or assisted in an abortion.

    Not quite. According the General Handbook of Instructions, a woman who
    has submitted to an abortion or a man who has encouraged, consented to,
    or arranged for an abortion may be baptized only if the stake president
    or full-time mission president approves. The handbook says the
    president should be guided by Doctrine and Covenants section 20, verses
    37 and 68 through 69 in making this determination. Basically, these
    passages teach that a person that has fully repented of their sins
    should be received by baptism into the church.

    
    .13, .14
    
    Rich,
    
    I think you may have misunderstood me.  I did not mean to imply that 
    I am making judgements on the person.  It is not for me to judge 
    anyone (I have enough problems of my own, thank you).  
    
    What I meant in my replies were the following:
    
    1)    Abortion is (generally) seen as a social issue, not a moral issue.
    
    2)    I personally find abortion - wrong.  It is not the person that
          I find wrong, it is the act of abortion (the murdering of a baby).
      
          Repentence is possible.  I know that it causes more anguish than
          be described in any words that I could find.  I only meant that
          it is easier to avoid the little mistakes than to repent of the
          big ones.
    
    3)    Regarding membership & abortion.  I have this third hand.  
          It could be that my either I or my wife misunderstood something.  
          In any case, thank you for setting me straight.
          
    4)    Perhaps I sound a little harsh or self-righteous.  If you think
          I am harsh, you are probably right, but I'm harsh about abortion, 
          not the person.  If you think I am self-righteous, you are off base.
    
          The harshness in my tone probably comes from the fact that I have 
          seen the lives of some of my best friends ruined because of similar 
          experiences.  
    
          One of them, my seminary teacher, (very well respected & loved by
          the congregation) got up in sacrament meeting and mentioned why he 
          was being excommunicated.  Tears flowed from his eyes (and most of 
          the people that knew him).  It cut me like a knife.  His wife and
          children left him.  His anguish was written on his face.  He
          suffered a great deal.  He has since repented and the last I heard, 
          he has re-married and later on became a bishop (in the church) 
          somewhere or other.  
     
          Several other close friends married a whole lot sooner than they 
          planned - because the girl was pregnant.  Two of them ended up in
          divorce.  I haven't heard from the other in a while, but they
          sure had it rough.  I could go on, but I would probably bore you.
    
          What I mean to say is that pre-marital sex makes more people
          miserable than any other single thing I can think of.  
    
          Perhaps abortion repulses me so much because I have a wife and 
          two children that I love very much.  When I talked to my wife
          about this subject, she said that before we had children, she 
          never really gave the subject very much thought.  But she said 
          that this changed the very first time she held our son in her arms.  
          The very thought of what an abortion really is, saddens her when
          she thinks about it.  
          
          I'll close for now.  I have said more on the subject than I 
          originally wanted to.  You're right Rick, the subject has brought
          up some unpleasant memories.  Since I have moved around a bit, it 
          has been interesting (and painful) to keep in touch with people.
          With some of my friends, I have seen the before, during, and
          after of such experiences.  I have watched them as they fell and
          as they picked themselves up.  Some are still having it rough.
    
          Perhaps I _am_ critical of abortion.  But, perhaps it is because 
          I care.
    
    Sorry to have rambled on, but thanks for listening.
    
    Frank
    
    
    But thank God for the gift of
          repentence.

        Re: Note 345.15 by MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY

    Hi Frank,

    I don't regard you as self righteous on this issue. My objective was to
    perhaps get us thinking about the person who has committed this sin.
    I'm comforted to know that, for them, too, there is repentance.

    Rich

    I would like, as a woman to also give my opinion on this subject.
    
    I consider myself Pro-choice, not in the sense of being abortion,
    but in the sense that a woman should be able to decide for herself.
    I do not care for the male politicians alsways using this as a
    political issue, it is a moral one or a social one depending on
    one's philosophy (in my opinion ...of course !)
    
    I an active LDS woman, who serves and teaches in Relief Society,
    just for background information.  This is the only country so far
    that I have seen mixing religion , state, moral, and social issues]
    together.  Sure as LDS people we would love to see the world understand
    and accept things the same way we do, but that is taking away some
    of man's free agency that we so dearly encourage.
    
    I do believe that life begins at conception, but as everyone one
    else I do not know when that person becomes an actual human being
    beyond the flesh...and I would not even attempt to try to answer
    this.  Let's not make the mistake of assuming that most women who
    have abortions are sexually wonton, or only interested in themselves,
    because the men in all instances are not the ones who will bear
    the burden, regardless of what you brethen may like to think !
    
    We teach that we will be judged according to the laws that have
    been given us, and that for ALL people of the earth.
    
    different ethnic groups and cultures and diferent ways of regarding
    this issue, and I cannot start to pretend that we are right only
    because we believe we are.  Let's not make law that enter in the
    
    intimacy of people's bedroom - how far will we go ?  Do we also
    want to regulate when people have children, if we want to regulate
    when they should keep them ?          
    Yes we do not want to use public funds to help poor pregnant women
    to excercise their right to decide, does this mean that we will
    always look down on them, because they either do not have the
    education,or the means to protect themselves if they choose to be
    sexually active (though they do not always "choose".  ( I am not 
    advocating sexual activity --do not
    misread and I do teach my children about chastity ...! especially
    my son who does not have a father who can guide him...!)
    
    I have a lot more things that I would like to express, but somehow
    I find it a little bit difficult on a machine.  Recently I was asked
    to speak at an upcoming fireside, and the choice of the subject
    was to be mine, so I asked if we could discuss abortion (as we never
    discuss current issues in the Church ...!!) and it was denied !!!
    It's TOO hot !!! Why are we so weak in our faith that we are afraid at 
    looking at the subject ??  
    
    When I was in France, where the abortion pill was introduced last
    year, I asked my doctor if he did abortions, and he was affirmative.
    As LDS it somewhat "shocked" me, but he went on to explain that
    the women get counseling before they can actually make the decision
    and they have to speak to a social worker to make sure they are
    not coerced into this decision, and he felt that he was just doing
    his job as a doctor and that is to make sure that they medically
    properly taken care of, so they don't have to go to back-alley
    butchers...
    
    In final, I am pro-choice because I do not want to decide for someone
    else ... but I do view life as sacred and believe that we will account
    of our actions to the Supreme being, no matter what name people
    identify HIM as...
    
    thanks for listening 
    -Mathilde
    (new to this note ...!
               

    The choice is not between raising a child as a single parent and
    abortion.  Placing the baby for adoption is a third choice.
    
    There are many one-parent families, but they didn't all start out
    that way.  Desertion, divorce, death are three ways a family may
    be left with a single parent.
    
    I know I've said the following before, but I don't remember if I've
    noted it, so here goes:  
    
    When I was a child, birth control was not readily available, or
    even legal, at least not in the midwest, where we lived at the time.
    I remember reading newspaper and magazine articles, some pro and some 
    con, re making various birth control methods legal and easy to obtain.
    
    One of the arguments against birth control was that this would
    encourage a lessening of respect for human life, and some writers 
    depicted a society in which abortion and euthanasia were considered 
    tools rather than evils.
    
    One of the arguments for birth control was that the abortion 
    (necessarily back-alley) rate would lessen, as would child abuse,
    since babies would be conceived only when they were wanted.
    
    I was around ten years old then, and of course didn't completely 
    understand (nor can I say I do even now) the issues, and my thinking
    was unclouded by any feeling of personal involvement (I didn't find
    out about the birds and bees for another couple of years - it was
    in many ways a more innocent time).  However, it seemed to me *logical* 
    that the pro-birth control stance was correct in saying that birth control
    would result in wanted and well-treated babies.  I remember feeling
    that those who claimed that condoning birth control would lead to
    abortion just weren't making sense.  Written out like this, ignoring
    history, I could still make a case for my then-opinion.
    
    Taking history, especially recent history into account, I see that
    condoning birth control (and I speak as a woman who used various
    methods of birth control, gratefully, for years) has in fact been
    followed by legalizing abortion, and that legalization has been
    followed by increased abortion.  Incidencws of child abuse have also 
    risen sharply.  I can't say that the one *caused* any of the others -
    I don't know.  But I can and do say with certainty that those in
    the late 1950s who believed birth control would lessen abortion were
    wrong.
    
    I am grateful to God that my three children were planned and welcome - 
    although my beloved first-born was originally planned for about two
    years later than she arrived! :)
    
    I'm grateful that I was able to conceive, carry to term, and give
    birth to my children.
    
    I'm grateful that I have not found myself in the tragedy of conceiving
    a child through incest or rape.
    
    The only body over which I have control, the only free agency I
    can invoke, is my own.  I can imagine heart-scalding situations,
    but I cannot imagine circumstances under which I would choose abortion.
    
    J.R.R. Tolkien, through his character, Gandalf, makes an excellent
    point.  I don't have _The Fellowship of the Ring_ here with me, so 
    will paraphrase:         
           
    	Many live that deserve to die, and many die that deserve to
    	live.  Can you give life to them?  Then be not so hasty to
    	take life.                      
    
    aq
    
    

    
    Tonight I saw a report on TV where they covered a Pro-Choice rally.
    There was no question in my mind that, at least in the minds of the
    reporters and participants, Pro-Choice was the same as Pro-Abortion.  
    (No other freedoms of choice were discussed, of course.)  The reporters 
    seemed entirely sympathetic with those participating in the rally, in my 
    opinion.  A (propagandist?) statement was made to the effect that the 
    majority of voters favor abortion rights and that the majority of
    politicians are against.  More than before, I believe that there is a 
    great cloud cast over minds so that sacrosanct democracy has somehow 
    become equated with the perceived need to subsidize and sanction the 
    destruction of innocent life.  I find myself in sharp contention with 
    efforts to have me swallow this sugar-coated swill.
    
    Steve

 >           A (propagandist?) statement was made to the effect that the 
 >  majority of voters favor abortion rights and that the majority of
 >  politicians are against.  More than before, I believe that there is a 
 >  great cloud cast over minds so that sacrosanct democracy has somehow 
 >  become equated with the perceived need to subsidize and sanction the 
 >  destruction of innocent life.   
    
 >  Steve


Hi Steve!

Interesting observations! In our congressional district we have a can-
didate who was formerly in congress about a decade ago. Then, he was
anti-abortion. In this campaign, he has switched to pro-choice. Pub-
lic pressure and the desire to return to Congress has turned him around
on this issue. I believe that in his heart he is still an "anti". For
the life of me, I cannot understand how these politicians can live with 
themselves! I'm glad I'm not in politics; if I were, I wouldn't last long.
The pro-choice movement would drum me out. The problem here is that it
SEEMS that the majority of Americans are for pro-choice. If the courts 
push it back into the state legislatures I believe we'll see much more 
pressure brought to bear upon politicians by sp. interest groups and the 
media to fashion pro-choice laws.

Kevin

    Hi, Kevin!
    
    >The problem here is that it     
    >SEEMS that the majority of Americans are for pro-choice. If the courts     
    >push it back into the state legislatures I believe we'll see much more     
    >pressure brought to bear upon politicians by sp. interest groups and
    >the media to fashion pro-choice laws.
    
    Agreed.  I think that part of the problem is that "pro-choice", like
    "gay", is an idiomatic expression.  My opinion is that being for abortion 
    has very little to do with freedom of choice.  I would live and die to
    protect freedom of choice.  I am in favor of freedom of choice and
    vehemently against pro-choice.  It has more to do with helping others to 
    avoid the consequences of bad choices, in my opinion.  If you remove the 
    consequences of bad choices, you also remove the responsibility that 
    people have for avoiding bad choices.  In my opinion, freedom of choice 
    is moot when the individual does not receive the consequences of choices.  
    So, in a way I view "pro-choice" as being a label for an idea that 
    actually works against freedom of choice.
    
    Steve

    One nail you've hit is the media pushing it's own agenda. When I'm hit
    by the statements that say that the majority of Americans are in favor
    of abortion, my first reaction is, "well, they didn't ask me..."
    There is more to this of course. Abortion under what circumstances?
    What exactly were the people asked when they were polled? How honest is
    the polling organization? I have an article where a large, well known 
    polling organization had people who were making up people instead of
    calling them and putting down their own answers.
    
    Frankly, when ever the media reports that "xx% of Americans feel xyz",
    I am VERY skeptical.
    
    Now, back to our program...
    
    Bryan
    

    Re .19
    
    There you go, Steve! Something we agree upon 100%...
    
    Ed
    

    RE: 345.18 XCUSEME::QUAYLE
    
    I totally agree with you Ann. I believe that abortion has lessened the
    respect society had towards life in general. I mean when society treats
    unborn life as a piece of tissue is it any wonder that the murders in
    Washington D.C. are so high or that murder and violent death are on the
    rise generally? Society views people as just a larger and more developed 
    piece of tissue. To illustrate this point let me share a story. When I
    was a freshman in college I attended a pro-life seminar at the local LDS
    Institute near campus. During this seminar it was said that a state 
    Legislator in Florida had introduced a bill to have all handicapped and
    elderly person's living in state run facilities euthanised (sp) to save
    tax dollars. That in itself was distressing but I then heard that he 
    submitted this bill 3 years in a row and that it was defeated by a
    narrower margin each time it was introduced. Rational (?) persons 
    actually voted to pass something so hideous and revolting. I was very
    shocked that it even made it to a vote. 
    
    It's so comforting that we, as LDS, have a different view. A view of 
    people that put's us, as King David said, a little lower than the
    angels and crowned with glory and honor. A view that say's we are the
    offspring of Diety and we have divine potential within each of us and a
    kind, loving Heavenly Father to help us reach it. I'm reminded of a
    poem written by William Wordsworth called Ode to Immortality. Part of 
    it speaks to this subject. 
    
    Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting.
    The soul that rises with us, our life's star;
    Hath had elsewhere it's setting; And cometh from afar.
    Not in entire forgetfulness,
    And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory do we come;
    From God, who is our home.
    
    God bless,
    
    Dave Pyle
    TFO

Hello friends,

I was at an Education Days (aka education week) meeting
last week when the speaker (I think it was Brad Wilcox, 
a very entertaining youth speaker who teaches the 6th
grade in public schools for his profesion) mentioned that
"Pro Choice" doesn't really mean anything at all, since
Free Agency is a gift from God and can't be taken away.
Various kinds of pressure can be applied but the agency
and responsibility for the decisions can not be taken away.
Therefore to use the term Pro Choice is to try make it
sound like the discussion is about a basic freedon but 
in fact they are not. It is a way of just diverting the
attention away from the real issue so people will support
their cause and not really think about the real issue at
hand which is of course abortion.

My personal position is that indeed a person has the
freedom to choose their own behaivor untill their choice 
violates the freedoms of other individuals. At that time
the law is there to provide a recourse and protection
for the other individuals.  So indeed a woman can choose
to engage in activity that results in a pregnancy but
once that pregnance has begun then her choice to abort
very definitely affects another individual (permanently)
therefore the law should protect the rights of that other
individual (the not yet born child) and disallow abortion
The woman certainly can choose to place that child for
adoption (there are certainly plenty of homes that want
that child) but she should not be allowed to terminate
the life of that child.

I think it does not even matter when the spirit enters
the body. In the natural course of events countless eggs
and sperm die so nature seems to treat them as "just
tissue" but once the egg is fertilized nature treats
if very differently, the major efforts of the mother's 
body are mobilized to protect that fetus so it has a 
very high probability of being sucessfully born. Nature
even has ways of determining when things have gotten too
far wrong in the developing fetus and will in such a 
case spontaneously terminate the development. Therefore
I believe is is inappropriate of us mortals in our great
wisdom to determine that this not_yet_born_person should
be terminated.

The second major point is that once fertilization takes
place there now exists a new individual in genetic terms.
There exists all that is necessary to be a mature adult
and all that it needs is a lot of nurturing and care.

In summary, "Pro Choice" is not about free agency since
that is not man's to give or take, so please don't let 
their intentional misnomer decieve you into giving their 
cause one moments support even just in your own mind.
Second, don't get worried about when life really begins
since it is clear when the individual begins and we as
a society can not let one person's desires destroy the
future of another (helpless) individual. Remember there 
is plenty of opportunity for choice, choice to not be
sexually active, choice to use contraceptive means, 
choice to place the resultant child for adoption as soon
as it is well enough developed to live on it's own (born),
and the choice to rear the child oneself. The only choice
that is inhumane, and anti social and unfair is the 
choice to terminate that individual's experience on this
earth.

I for one represent a family that has two wonderful 
children that were actually nurtured up to the moment 
of birth by women that we have never met. We are eternally
greatful for those women for letting our children be 
born. One of them even sent a (unsigned) letter along 
with the baby wherein she described herself as a partner
with God to bring that child into our home where for 
reasons we don't understand we were unable to get that
child in a more traditional manner.  I can also say that
there is a VERY GREAT desire for more children such as
this to be adopted. you can't imagine how great a desire
for children burns in the hearts of MANY MANY families
that either can't get any or are limited to two.  As one
bumper sticker succintly put it: "Adoption not Abortion"
May more people who find themselves with a pregnancy at
an "iconvienient time" make themselves partners with God
to bless the lives of others like myself instead of 
partners with Satan in terminating the future of another
individual.

your brother,

Len

From KSL News:

   (SALT LAKE CITY) - A Utah House committee is scheduled to take up the
Senate's restrictive abortion bill today. The legislation passed in the Senate
yesterday goes to the House Health Committee and will likely go to the House
floor tomorrow. Governor Norm Bangerter already has said he will sign the bill
the day it reaches his desk. If the measure passes, predominantly Republican,
Mormon Utah may become the first state this year to outlaw most elective
abortions. Seventy percent of Utahns and 90 percent of their lawmakers are
members of the Mormon Church. The church says abortion is a grievous sin except
in the most dire medical circumstances. 

   (SALT LAKE CITY) - Even a supporter of Utah's anti-abortion bill says it may
not hold up in the U-S Supreme Court. Senator Winn Richards says he could not
oppose the bill. But he says for a body opposed to gambling, he's surprised
it's willing to take the bill on. However, Rosa Goodnight of Utah's Right to
Life chapter says her group believes the bill is constitutional. She doesn't
foresee a lengthy legal battle over the bill. Goodnight knows of two law firms
that are pro life and are willing to defend the bill. Even so, the Utah
National Organization for Women has threatened to wage a letter-writing
campaign against the state's bid for the Olympics if the bill becomes law. 

From KSL News:
--

   (SALT LAKE CITY) - Negative reactions to Utah's restrictive abortion bill
are heating up. Two Utah organizations for women's rights say people are
calling them and threatening to avoid Utah because of the bill that outlaws
most abortions. Susanne Millsaps says since Governor Norm Bangerter signed the
bill last Thursday her office has received at least six calls a day from people
saying they won't ski in Utah. 
   Millsaps is the executive director of the Utah affiliate of the National
Abortion Rights Action League. 
   The executive coordinator of the Utah National Organization for Women says
she's had similar experiences. 
   A spokesperson at the Salt Lake Convention and Visitor's Bureau says three
convention groups have asked about the law. 

>   (SALT LAKE CITY) - Negative reactions to Utah's restrictive abortion bill
>are heating up. Two Utah organizations for women's rights say people are
>calling them and threatening to avoid Utah because of the bill that outlaws
>most abortions. Susanne Millsaps says since Governor Norm Bangerter signed the
>bill last Thursday her office has received at least six calls a day from people
>saying they won't ski in Utah. 


	Good!  I think these people will come to find out that Utah will most
	likely not be "bribed" by threats like this.

	I remember that when government funded colleges were forced to have 
	co-ed dorms, BYU told them to "fly a kite", and the government was 
	upset because they found out that BYU was not government funded!

	It will be interesting to observe how the "standards" of the world
	fall apart.....of cource, it will bad for LDS people if Utah gives
	in.  But, in either case, it will be most interesting to observe.

    	It's been a LONG time since I entered a note in this notesfile
	but I have recently been made more aware of the "Freedom of Choice"
    	Act and it's ramifications and I feel I should comment.  I must say 
    	I am appalled at what I've heard, if what I've heard is accurate.  
    	As I understand it the effect of this Act will be to wipe out any 
    	and all prohibitions against abortion, at ANY stage of the
    	pregnancy, in ALL 50 states.  Laws regarding parental notification 
    	if adolescents intend to have an abortion would also go away. So
    	called "Conscience Clauses" allowing Doctors and Nurses to avoid
    	participating in 2nd trimester abortions would be abolished. They
    	would have no choice but to participate if this Act is passed.
    	I wanted to writemore but I have to go to a meeting. Is this info
    	correct and if so do you all have any comments? 
    
    	I'll write more on my feelings and opinions later.
    
    	God bless,
    
    	Dave Pyle
    	DEC - Tempe, Az.