Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Lesson from Appleton: The Dangers of Immorality, Abortion Pills, and Questionable Smoothies

My wonderful little town of Appleton, Wisconsin, one of the safest communities in the nation, is in the national news because of a troubling crime. The story involves a married man who allegedly used RU486 to make his mistress miscarry. He may have been responsible for two miscarriages she had. She caught him trying to get her to drink a smoothies that had a powder on the rim of the cup. She had the powder tested: RU486, the abortion drug. He obtained it from his connections in India.

Chilling, horrifying. The real lesson is not about the dangers of RU486, but the dangers of immorality and especially infidelity. It leads to so many problems, so much deceit, so much harm.

The man is being prosecuted for murder under Wisconsin's fetal homicide law (we're one of 37 states with such a law).

16 comments:

Horebite said...

Speaking of which, can someone explain to me why this would be considered murder, but abortion is legal? I think out society is schizophrenic.

AH said...

Jeff, I agree. I have always maintained that if everyone obeyed the Law of Chastity in this world and avoided alcohol, 98% of the problems we have in this world would disappear--and that's not really an exaggeration in my opinion.

Latter-Day James said...

I was thinking the same thing Horebite. Why is this murder when they can get the abortion legally. Unless it is illegal in Wisconsin. I think what he did was horrible and was murder but if they prosecute for this as murder why is abortion illegal? Seems like this would make people think a little about their position. The only difference I can see is that she wanted to have the baby and he took it away from her whereas if he had wanted to keep the baby and she didn't then getting an abortion would be ok. Sometimes I just don't get it.

Bret said...

It's the choice of the mother whether or not to abort.

This makes me wonder how abortion is rationalized. Is it because the rights of the baby do not outweigh the rights of the mother?

If this is the case, then you could argue that the father hasn't violated anyone's rights because the baby didn't have any rights to begin with. I guess he would be charged with assault against the mother or something...

halibut said...

The baby has no rights. ZERO rights. It is all up to the mother.

Pops said...

Let's see, the baby has zero rights. Until what age? This could make parenting a lot easier. Based on what? The notion that might makes right?

Political theory aside, abortion is one step closer to eliminating anyone who is considered inconvenient by whoever happens to be in power. In defiance of Godwin's Law, I won't mention the most famous adherent of this philosophy, although he was but one of several during the last century.

I wish we could all just take a deep breath and step away from the brink. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone considered human life so precious that abortions just didn't happen?

J.L., CEO of Planned Unparenthood said...

Let's see, the baby has zero rights. Until what age?

Pop, it's not about age - it's about viability. Can the fetus - pre-natal or post-natal - take care of itself without relying on the body of the mother, or on the food, shelter, and daily cleaning of the mother or other parental unit? If a post-natal fetus is not able to cook for itself or at least clean up after itself, it is not yet a viable, independent being, but one that depends on some form of connection to the body of the mother, such as the mother using her body to vacuum and mop.

When that post-natal fetus is not viable, the mother should have the right to choose whether to terminate that fetus. And now, thanks to Planned Unparenthood, that choice can be executed safely, efficiently, and affordably.

Huston said...

Regarding the schizophrenic philosophy of abortion, I hate to quote something as vile as South Park, but one older episode that I heard about hit the nail on the head:

A boy's mother gets tired of him and goes to the doctor for an abortion. He tries to explain to her that he can't do that because the "fetus" was now eight years old and in third grade. Indignant, the mother rants about her rights because it's her body.

An unsavory source, but good satire is good satire.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

This is an interesting posting, and probably a better and more appropriate place to discuss an issue I raised in an earlier posting as an example of inconsistency rather than to make a point about abortion and differing views.

First responding to AH, I think you're probably correct. If people didn't drink to excess and didn't engage in premarital relations, much of the abortion debate would be rendered moot. However, we are all fallible human beings, subject to temptations, and poor decisions, and for some of us poor impulse control. That's why Jesus' sacrifice for us is so important, because without it, we'd have no hope for forgiveness or for overcoming our own human faults.

Latter-day James, you are abosulutely correct, the laws regarding abortion and fetal homicide make absolutely no sense. Its an inconsistency in the law that creates a huge debate. I'll try to explain why there's this huge problem and at the same time, answer some of Bret's question.

To start you have to look at significant changes in American viewpoints in the sixties. What you see in the Supreme Court during that time is a whittling away of old taboos. The cases start by giving more freedoms to people and limiting government involvement into our lives. For example, in the 60's doctors in many states couldn't even discuss birth control such as condoms with patients. Ultimately that changes, for the better and we have more freedoms.

But, along comes Roe v Wade in 1973 and suddenly abortion is legal. Roe gives you the hold argument about viability versus the right of the mother to abort the child. Here's the problem with Roe v. Wade,actually there's a couple of them. First, the essential question posed to the Supreme Court, one that would've ended the debate was when does life begin. Here the supreme court let us all down, and never answered the question. Had they said life begins at conception, there'd be no debate at all. But, then abortion could not have been justified in any form. So the Court just refused to answer the question.

The other problem with Roe v. Wade is that the Supreme Court in deciding it, trampled over the rights given to the States in the 10th amendment to issue its ruling. Abortion is a question that should never have gone to the federal courts, it is an area that the states had, and should have exclusive rights to decide. But because the US Supreme Court got involved, the issue has become one huge mess that has resulted in our society minimizing, and diminishing respect for the lives of unborn children, as well as minimizing and diminishing our own self respect. Consequently we have laws that make no sense...such as wrongful death for unborn children lawsuits at the same time we allow a mother to abort the very same child.

To j. l. ceo of planned parenthood. You need to go reread Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The viability question was overturned and that isn't the standard anymore.

Here's the problem with your whole agency's position. Abortion is about a choice, a very selfish, choice, that being the mother's rights versus the child's rights. Your agency uses political correctness and double talk by calling a child a fetus. Its less threatening that way. But ultimately it is a child we're talking about, not some blob, or compilation of cells, but a child. Murder is also about a choice. In both murder, and abortion the choice being made is what do to with someone else's body. Murder is wrong, and is a crime because in committing murder we are exercising our choice to do something with someone else's body, over their ability to decide what to do with their own body. How is abortion any different than that? In an abortion a mother is saying I have a higher priority therefore, I get to choose what to do with this body developing inside me. Ultimately, an abortion infringes upon the rights of the child to live, by making the mother's rights higher in priority. Planned Parenthood, and its ilk simply justify their agency's positions by calling the developing child something else. And you cite to the horror stories of abortions in the 60's to state your case. That's an appalling course of action.

Ultimately, we need to be teaching our children respect for themselves, and that sex does not equal love, and that marriage is still important, and that children wanted or unwanted are not disposable. That's my two cents.

Catholic Defender

J.L., CEO of Planned Unparenthood said...

CD, that's Planned UNParenthood - much better than Planned Parenthood, with even higher profit margins. And much more noble in truly protecting the sacred right of a woman to choose.

Anonymous said...

Dear j.l. ceo of unplanned parenthood.

My apologies, I initially misread the name of your agency, not that there's a great deal of difference between your agency and planned parenthood. Defending and protecting a woman's right to choose, that's an interesting choice of words. Perhaps that's the problem with your agencies philosophy.

You see, and this will sound strange coming from a catholic, but I agree that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. But therein lies the fallicy of your whole argument. See the choice that occurs with an abortion isn't a choice of what to do with a woman's body, its a choice of what to do with a child's body.

The choice a woman can make with her body is to have sex, or not. To use birth control, or not. To make the man use birth control, or not. To tell the man no. Men, they have a choice they can make with thier own bodies too. They can act like men and not neanderthals thinking with thier hormones instead of thier brains. Men can choose to act responsibly and not insist that women must have sex with them in order for there to be a relationship worth having. Men can choose to teach their sons that women are equals entitled to respect instead of teaching thier sons that having sex is a right of passage. Men can choose to be responsible and use birth control...or better yet, men and women can choose to get married and lead moral and productive lives. All of these are choices that effect our own bodies.

Where abortion falls short is that the choice being made is what to do with someone else's body. Take rape and murder at their very core elements. At the core the reason that those are crimes, and in fact sins, is not just because they are heinous offenses. What makes them heinous offenses is the fact that in both the case of rape and murder one person is imposing a choice upon the use of another persons body. A killer is choosing to take another's life, a rapist is choosing to take another's dignity and control and peace of mind. Abortion is no different, no matter how you doctor it up, its still one person imposing their will upon another person. The only real difference is that in rape cases or murder cases, there's someone to speak on behalf of the victim, be it the state or a family member. With abortion, there's no one to speak on behalf of the innocent child effected by the poor decision making of the two involved parents. That voice is silent because agencies such as your put forth the fallicy that its a mere fetus instead of a child. That child's voice remains silent because it can speak and say I want to live.

Catholic Defender.

Lars said...

Catholic Defender, "J.L. CEO of Planned Unparenthood" is engaging in satire. Have a look at the link and notice the euphemism "post-natal fetus." :) He's pointing out the exact same fallacy that you are.

Anonymous said...

Dear J L of Unplanned Parenthood,

I owe you an apology. In my fervor to respond, I completely missed the satirical nature of your response as well as the link which would've made it clear that you were being satirical. I am very sorry if I offended. Seems that we actually are on the same side of the debate.

Catholic Defender

steve said...

So it sound as if most of you are totally against any form of abortion. While I don't cherish the thought of abortion I do think that it is an option that should be available. There are some circumstances where abortion may be the best solution such as rape or incest. But at times the mental or physical health of the mother can justify an abortion.

Lastly many here are believers in only black and white. You don't think that there are any other colors. Open you eyes and try to see the rest of the world. Try to view the world through anothers eyes and stop trying to impose only your thoughts and beliefs on the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

Dear Steve,

In many aspects, I am not a black and white thinker, in fact much of the world can and should be viewed in shades of grey. But, on the topic of abortion, I don't see any other options than to be black and white in the view point. Either you believe in abortion or you don't. But there is no sacred right to an abortion.

You bring up an interesting point about rape and incest. Let me pose this question. Rape, and Incest both involve the sins of the father's, and possibly in some cases, albeit very rarely, the sins of the mothers. In those cases, you would allow the slaughter of an innocent child, because of the egregious sins of one or both of the parents. The child didn't do anything wrong here, yet its the child that pays for the sins of the parent or parent(s). Does that really sound like justice to you? Is that really what we want our society to be about, punishing those who did nothing wrong for our own sins? Can you honestly say we'd be better off.

Consider our criminal laws. We don't punish parents when their children do something criminal. Some may disagree with me on that point, but the reality is that when a person commits a crime, they are the only one who can be held accountable for the crime. Even in the case of multiple criminals, we're still holding each person accountable for their wrongful actions. Yet what you would suggest is that instead of punishing the rapist, or the incestuous parent, we merely destroy the child that may be the product of such horrendous actions. Regardless of how you say it, the child still did nothing wrong. There are better ways to deal with rapists and incestuous relationships than compounding the sin by killing the innocent child who may have resulted from the sin.

Catholic Defender

viagra online said...

I don't agree with abortion pills, by the simple reason that is a crime, where you re killing an innocent little person.