LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[MG 2.0]

And the troll trolls.

My posts are not troll posts.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Just a random (on topic) thought.

Should the vote on Idaho Prop 1 be restricted to only female voters, on the basis that it’s really a vote about choices that directly affect their bodies? And should the advice for Church members in Idaho have come from the female leaders of the Church…oh, wait…

I think the women with a stake in the discussion, along with the best scientific information, should be the people making this decision. And the advice of four untrained volunteer religious men should be dismissed out of hand.

[MG 2.0]

Just a random (on topic) thought.

Should the vote on Idaho Prop 1 be restricted to only female voters, on the basis that it’s really a vote about choices that directly affect their bodies? And should the advice for Church members in Idaho have come from the female leaders of the Church…oh, wait…

I think the women with a stake in the discussion, along with the best scientific information, should be the people making this decision. And the advice of four untrained volunteer religious men should be dismissed out of hand.

Women are not asexual. Everyone involved ought to vote in deciding whether a woman can, by choice, abort an unborn child.

Women getting elective abortions are exercising their 'right' to have sex. As are the participating partners. Men ought to be involved in the voting process.

They should not get a free pass which excludes them from the responsibility they have for the unborn child being killed if Prop. 1 passes. All parties should be accountable and held responsible for their decisions.

As has been mentioned, the unborn child has no vote in the matter.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Just a random (on topic) thought.

Should the vote on Idaho Prop 1 be restricted to only female voters, on the basis that it’s really a vote about choices that directly affect their bodies? And should the advice for Church members in Idaho have come from the female leaders of the Church…oh, wait…

I think the women with a stake in the discussion, along with the best scientific information, should be the people making this decision. And the advice of four untrained volunteer religious men should be dismissed out of hand.

Speaking of having a stake in the discussion, i don't recall ever hearing about a man who died in childbirth.

[MG 2.0]

Just a random (on topic) thought.

Should the vote on Idaho Prop 1 be restricted to only female voters, on the basis that it’s really a vote about choices that directly affect their bodies? And should the advice for Church members in Idaho have come from the female leaders of the Church…oh, wait…

I think the women with a stake in the discussion, along with the best scientific information, should be the people making this decision. And the advice of four untrained volunteer religious men should be dismissed out of hand.

Speaking of having a stake in the discussion, i don't recall ever hearing about a man who died in childbirth.

That much is true.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

[...]

The regular termination of human life...through choice...is a national tragedy.

Elective abortions make up the vast majority of all procedures. The Idaho law being proposed does not support human life. It supports/condones and puts into law a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability for whatever reason she chooses. Am I wrong on this point?

Trouble is, I could never get MG to explain clearly at what point between a not yet implanted fertilised ovum and the birth of a live baby he thinks that a human life is actually present for the first time. That makes rational discussion well night impossible.

[Rivendale]

God actually seems okay with ending pregnancies since 15% to 20% of them end up in miscarriages.

[MG 2.0]

[...]

The regular termination of human life...through choice...is a national tragedy.

Elective abortions make up the vast majority of all procedures. The Idaho law being proposed does not support human life. It supports/condones and puts into law a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability for whatever reason she chooses. Am I wrong on this point?

Trouble is, I could never get MG to explain clearly at what point between a not yet implanted fertilised ovum and the birth of a live baby he thinks that a human life is actually present for the first time. That makes rational discussion well night impossible.

This does NOT negate my arguments. You merely want to go sideways rather than moving forward and engaging with what I've said.

I honestly don't think you can. What comments I have heard are pretty much based on selfishness and the disregard for human life...no matter when it begins.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

God actually seems okay with ending pregnancies since 15% to 20% of them end up in miscarriages.

That's nature taking its course. In my interactions with you I come away thinking you believe in the natural world...evolution and human biology being a part of that?

Miscarriages/spontaneous abortions occur in a world where nature/biology take their course.

I have not heard ONE good argument against the actual substance of what I've presented on this thread.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

God actually seems okay with ending pregnancies since 15% to 20% of them end up in miscarriages.

That's nature taking its course. In my interactions with you I come away thinking you believe in the natural world...evolution and human biology being a part of that?

Miscarriages/spontaneous abortions occur in a world where nature/biology take their course.

I have not heard ONE good argument against the actual substance of what I've presented on this thread.

Regards,
MG

According to your worldview the entire universe is setup by god therefore nature's way is God's actions.