u/OtterWithKids

Detransitioner Fox Varian Awarded $2 Million in Historic Lawsuit

George Orwell’s 1984 was about a society in which the government reduced people’s ability to distinguish between concepts by removing words from the language. We see this in 21st-century politics all the time, most notably with the conflation of “marriage” and “garriage” leading the United States Supreme Court to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. So why don’t we use this to our advantage by doing it in reverse?

Abortion proponents say that “abortion is healthcare”, so let’s accept that as a given. Healthcare is defined as “the preservation of mental and physical health by preventing or treating illness through services offered by the health profession.” So, if a procedure’s purpose is to preserve health (e.g. bandaging a wound, setting a broken bone, etc.), it’s healthcare. That makes sense. Conversely, if a procedure’s purpose is not to preserve health (e.g. driving a car, dribbling a basketball, chopping off a healthy limb), that’s not healthcare. Hopefully we can all agree, up to this point.

So, let’s consider two terms, abortion and termination, and apply them to two scenarios:

• If a baby’s death is unavoidable due to a medical condition (e.g. ectopic pregnancy), a procedure can save the mother’s life. There are two lives involved, but the only possible choices are to save one life or to save zero. Abortion saves one instead of zero, so abortion is healthcare.
• If a baby’s death is completely avoidable, but an adult (usually the mother) wants him or her dead, a procedure can end the baby’s life. There are two lives involved, but assuming we’re not going to murder both people, the only possible choices are to save two lives or to save one. Termination saves one instead of two, so termination is not healthcare.

In short, abortion purposes to save a life, so it’s healthcare; termination purposes to end a life, so it’s not healthcare. By distinguishing between the two procedures, we can use the pro-abortion crowd’s own argument and probably 95% of the debate disappears in a puff of logic.

Thoughts?

George Orwell’s 1984 was about a society in which the government reduced people’s ability to distinguish between concepts by removing words from the language. We see this in 21st-century politics all the time, most notably with the conflation of “marriage” and “garriage” leading the United States Supreme Court to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. So why don’t we use this to our advantage by doing it in reverse?

Abortion proponents say that “abortion is healthcare”, so let’s accept that as a given. Healthcare is defined as “the preservation of mental and physical health by preventing or treating illness through services offered by the health profession.” So, if a procedure’s purpose is to preserve health (e.g. bandaging a wound, setting a broken bone, etc.), it’s healthcare. That makes sense. Conversely, if a procedure’s purpose is not to preserve health (e.g. driving a car, dribbling a basketball, chopping off a healthy limb), that’s not healthcare. Hopefully we can all agree, up to this point.

So, let’s consider two terms, abortion and termination, and apply them to two scenarios:

• If a baby’s death is unavoidable due to a medical condition (e.g. ectopic pregnancy), a procedure can save the mother’s life. There are two lives involved, but the only possible choices are to save one life or to save zero. Abortion saves one instead of zero, so abortion is healthcare.
• If a baby’s death is completely avoidable, but an adult (usually the mother) wants him or her dead, a procedure can end the baby’s life. There are two lives involved, but assuming we’re not going to murder both people, the only possible choices are to save two lives or to save one. Termination saves one instead of two, so termination is not healthcare.

In short, abortion purposes to save a life, so it’s healthcare; termination purposes to end a life, so it’s not healthcare. By distinguishing between the two procedures, probably 95% of the debate disappears in a puff of logic.

Discuss.

ETA: a lot of people have responded to this, and I appreciate it! But I want to emphasize that nothing in this post should be construed to mean I don’t have a testimony of the Prophet’s calling and/or authority; I do, which is exactly why it’s so weird.

* * * *

I want to preface this by saying that President Dallin H. Oaks has long been one of my favorite Apostles. I’ve always loved his “no nonsense” way of putting things, and about 15 years ago, it was one of his talks that saved my testimony. I even wrote him a letter shortly thereafter, thanking him for that talk; and I still treasure the letter I received from him, in response. I absolutely sustain him as a prophet, seer, revelator, and the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That being said, when Howard W. Hunter became President of the Church—the first new Church President after my baptism—I immediately felt like he was The Prophet. The same went for Presidents Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson. But there’s something different about President Oaks. I sustain him, but there’s just a different feel to it, like he’s just kind of substituting for President Nelson. Maybe it’s because at the first General Conference after President Nelson passed, President Oaks had not yet been set apart and/or sustained as President of the Church? I’m guessing that’s all it is, but who knows?

What adds to it is that as I’ve been re-listening to the most recent General Conference addresses, I’ve been surprised by how many of the speakers cite President Nelson. I looked back through the Conference archives at the second General Conference after each of the six previous Church Presidents passed, and the difference was striking:

• President Lee: quoted thrice
• President Kimball: quoted thrice
• President Benson: quoted once
• President Hunter: quoted twice
• President Hinckley: quoted four times
• President Monson: quoted twice
• President Nelson: quoted 14 times

What on earth? Yes, President Oaks was also frequently quoted, but that’s a huge outlier! It’s like even the General Authorities and Officers are still more focused on him than is common.

Is anyone else feeling this way?

The post about sayings that sound like scripture, but aren’t, reminded me of a passage I absolutely love, from Orson Scott Card’s Speaker For the Dead. I’ll share it here because I expect the Saints will enjoy it.

>“A Great Rabbi stands, teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death.

>“There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine—a Speaker for the Dead—has told me of two other Rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.

>“The Rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. ‘Is there any man here,’ he says to them, ‘who has not desired another man’s wife, another woman’s husband?’

>“They murmur and say, ‘We all know the desire, but Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.’

>“The Rabbi says, ‘Then kneel down and give thanks that God has made you strong.’ He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, ‘Tell the Lord Magistrate who saved his mistress, then he’ll know I am his loyal servant.’

>“So the woman lives because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.

>“Another Rabbi. Another city. He goes to her and stops the mob as in the other story and says, ‘Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.’

>“The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. ‘Someday,’ they think, ‘I may be like this woman. And I’ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her as I wish to be treated.’

>“As they open their hands and let their stones fall to the ground, the Rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman’s head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brain among the cobblestones. ‘Nor am I without sin,’ he says to the people, ‘but if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead—and our city with it.’

>“So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.

>“The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die. Only one Rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation.

>“So of course, we killed him.”

>—San Angelo, Letters to an Incipient Heretic