The Church's position on abortion...

[_Drifting]

Why would the Church support the termination of a perfectly healthy foetus?

does it?

"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape,

i don't see anywhere that the Church specifically supports the termination of a "perfectly healthy fetus"
do you have a reference that mentions a PERFECTLY HEALTHY foetus? (or even one that anglicizes the word fetus?)

I've given you a clue...unless you think that the foetus produced from rape or incest is always non perfectly healthy...do you?

[_subgenius]

I've given you a clue...unless you think that the foetus produced from rape or incest is always non perfectly healthy...do you?

i do not think either way about it, not enough actual facts...but i appreciate your speculation, allow me to return it in kind.
The fetus is likely not "perfectly" healthy since it was spawned from horrible circumstance and its gestation, if allowed full term, would be less than optimal with regards to any psychological influence...but in your mind if you think that a rapist is more likely to produce a "perfectly healthy" specimen, i am sure you have your reasons.....er...excuses.

[_subgenius]

The way I read this the statement states that an abortion may be justified in cases of incest or rape. It those cases the health of the fetus is not taken into account. So a perfectly healthy fetus of a rape victim could be aborted

the "way" someone else reads it may be altogether then...and you are assuming facts not in evidence..or as we like to say...speculating

[_Tobin]

Actually, as far as I understand Mormon Doctrine, to obtain a body is the only point of life. As long as that is accomplished, the plan of God is fulfilled. Anything beyond that is bonus.

So the purpose of life is to get a body? That's it?
Cheque, please!

I'm afraid that's it. The Mormon tradition of the pre-mortal life is that God had a physical body and we did not. A plan was set in motion to allow that to happen so that everyone would be born, possess a body, be resurrected, and return to God. So long as that is accomplished, God's plan is fulfilled and the purpose of life is too. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

[Guest]

The fetus is likely not "perfectly" healthy since it was spawned from horrible circumstance and its gestation, if allowed full term, would be less than optimal with regards to any psychological influence....

I will leave this to stand on its own...

[_bcuzbcuz]

Now to my question. If the purpose of life is: "to get life experience and progress" what possible purpose exists in this child's life?

1. You assume that the child receives no experiences, has no cognitive existence, and has no ability to "live".
2. You assume that the child's purpose is not connected to yours.

If we assume #1, then you must surely concede #2 because otherwise your fostering the child makes no sense, is unreasonable, and illogical...and arguably unnatural.

If we disregard #1 then we still must concede #2 (based on the facts you have presented) and therefore must recognize that it is difficult to know another, almost as difficult as it is to love another...as your story illustrates.

As to assumption #1: I sat through several series of EEGs with my foster child and then spent time in discussions with several of the very top brain specialists at the Children's Hospital in Vancouver BC. They gave me enormous amounts of data and took the time to answer every one of my many questions. The spike and wave discharge patterns from my child both in waking and in sleep would bring you to tears. Apart from epileptic fits (petit and grand mal) that would send eruptions of brain electrical misfirings, many of this child's brain areas were flat-line.

All areas of higher function did not work. There were no patterns of recognition from any stimuli. I mentioned to one doctor that the child would sometimes smile when tickled on the stomach. His response was, "We don't actually know if it is a smile or a contortion brought about by pain."

From daily care of this child for 15 years I would summarize that the child has no cognitive existence.

Your assumption #2 is somewhat akin to the idea that a devout Catholic opined when I said I did not believe in God. "If there is no God to tell what is right or wrong then your taking care of this child has no value." You stated it as: "no sense, is unreasonable, and illogical...and arguably unnatural."

I agree.

My, now deceased, first wife put our names into Social Services to take in this foster child the same week our oldest child moved out from our home. A somewhat distorted "empty nest syndrome" seeing as how we still had our five other children still at home. Completely illogical. When my wife died suddenly I told Social Services, in the same conversation that I informed them she had died, that I would continue as a foster parent. I was obviously unbalanced, emotionally wrought and illogical.

Someday I will write a book about my experiences and I will make millions. I will have my reward.

[_subgenius]

From daily care of this child for 15 years I would summarize that the child has no cognitive existence.

if this is the sum of what it means to be living, then there should have been only one rational, reasonable, logical, and emotional solution...but alas that seems to have been avoided...for some other cause?

My, now deceased, first wife put our names into Social Services to take in this foster child the same week our oldest child moved out from our home. A somewhat distorted "empty nest syndrome" seeing as how we still had our five other children still at home. Completely illogical. When my wife died suddenly I told Social Services, in the same conversation that I informed them she had died, that I would continue as a foster parent. I was obviously unbalanced, emotionally wrought and illogical.

interesting how you have rationalized all this...but i do not see any reason to assign "coincidence" to this tale.

Someday I will write a book about my experiences and I will make millions. I will have my reward.

a tragic ending then......

[_bcuzbcuz]

From daily care of this child for 15 years I would summarize that the child has no cognitive existence.

if this is the sum of what it means to be living, then there should have been only one rational, reasonable, logical, and emotional solution...but alas that seems to have been avoided...for some other cause?

Stated simply and crassly, by law, preservation of life is foremost. Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part. I simply did my part.

[_subgenius]

Stated simply and crassly, by law, preservation of life is foremost. Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part. I simply did my part.

so what did play a "part"...if it was not logic, reason, rationale, nor emotion...then what was it?

and exactly what was doing your "part"? by your own admission you were "a part" (a significant part) of something that you did not believe in, did not think was logical, did not think was reasonable nor rational, and was without any of your own emotional investment.....soooo?

as for preservation of life...are you sure that was all that was involved?...i mean, simply put (and crassly)...food, air, and shelter will preserve life..is it preservation or prolongation that was occurring?

i mean you specifically mention "caring" for the child...not "preserving".......hmmm

[_bcuzbcuz]

Stated simply and crassly, by law, preservation of life is foremost. Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part. I simply did my part.

so what did play a "part"...if it was not logic, reason, rationale, nor emotion...then what was it?

and exactly what was doing your "part"? by your own admission you were "a part" (a significant part) of something that you did not believe in, did not think was logical, did not think was reasonable nor rational, and was without any of your own emotional investment.....soooo?

as for preservation of life...are you sure that was all that was involved?...i mean, simply put (and crassly)...food, air, and shelter will preserve life..is it preservation or prolongation that was occurring?

i mean you specifically mention "caring" for the child...not "preserving".......hmmm

You ask good and sound questions. The preservation of life fell under the domain of Social Services as soon as they had custody for the child and it started with the criminal charges against the birth father and before they could ascertain whether the mother was equally accountable (she wasn't). Since my wife and I submitted our names for fostering (and it did happen exactly as I stated, my wife definitely felt empty-nest syndrome) we were then responsible to do whatever the assignment called for.

You touch on an important issue, that of preservation or prolongation. When the child was about 8 years of age and following a very long stretch of emergencies and hospital stays the administrative doctor asked for and finally received a DNR (do not resuscitate order). That whole process took a very long time, mostly hinging upon how the issue would be played by the media should they find out that Social Services signed such an order for a child in their care. The DNR was finally signed by three attending physicians, the birth mother, myself and Social Services. The question truly was "to what benefit is a life prolonged when there are no cognitive abilities and only long suffering by the child:"