Slightly OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006

Josh Coates jcoates at archive.org
Tue Jul 12 15:01:05 MDT 2005


ooh, ooh - me too!  i'm done either! :-)

(jcoates)
>abortion is the classic case.  i've heard many young mormon women say "i'm
>pro-choice because i believe in free-agency."  of course, this is silly, as
>they might as well say  "i believe in legalizing [child abuse | murder |
>crack | prostitution |
>anything-else-you-can-think-of-that-you-personally-find-immoral] because i
>believe in free-agency."

(ejensen)
>That's what the choice
>is about.  Based on  your religious beliefs you should be able to
>*choose* if the abortion is acceptable between you and your God.

see?  this is what i meant.  this is so confusing.

did i mention that i'm pro-choice when it comes to manslaughter?

the government has all these restrictions and exceptions about manslaughter
but i think it's between me and my god if i want to kill a man.  based on my
religious beliefs i should be able to *choose* if the killing is acceptable
between me and my god.  instead, with few exceptions, they make it illegal
to kill people.  i think this is unfair and goes against my belief in
free-agency.

i mean, i personally don't think it's right to kill another man, but who am
i to force my morals on the rest of the people?  let them choose for
themselves.  that's what the choice is about.

Josh Coates
www.jcoates.org

-----Original Message-----
From: plug-bounces at plug.org [mailto:plug-bounces at plug.org]On Behalf Of
Eric Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:42 PM
To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006


Sasha Pachev wrote:

> No, you cannot. The position of the Church is to support all measures
> that restrict abortion except for cases of rape, incest, and when the
> life of the mother is in serious danger. If you fail to align your
> political views with the position of the Church, you cannot honestly
> say you are sustaining your leaders. And if so, you cannot honestly
> get through a temple recommend interview.
>
> Now, you can be a side-line LDS, to borrow a phrase from Elder
> Holland's talk, "sitting on the far edges of the doctrinal campfire",
> and take just about any position on any issue, and still call yourself
> LDS. You might even be able to rationalize your way through a temple
> recommend interview and get one. But you cannot expect the richness of
> the spiritual blessings that are predicated upon the commandment to
> sustain your leaders.
>
As mentioned early, free-agency is for "Freedom".  Which includes the
freedom to choose.  If I choose to never have an abortion then how am I
going against LDS doctrine?  I also choose not to do drugs, pick up
hookers, and kill hitchhikers.  Because the choice exists does that mean
I am a sinner?  Here is what I don't understand, the church itself says
there are a list of cases where it is acceptable to have an abortion.
But if it is illegal by all means, then how do they have said abortion
if they are in one of those extreme situations?  That's what the choice
is about.  Based on  your religious beliefs you should be able to
*choose* if the abortion is acceptable between you and your God.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice terms are silly and only cause people to jump to
conclusions and react on extreme sides.  In the end most of us are in
the same ball park.

Eric

.===================================.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
|      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
|  IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net   |
`==================================='






More information about the PLUG mailing list