A Child is not Property

[BruceRGilbert]

It might be your body, but the unborn child is not your property. The "unborn" belongs to society. Society has the responsibility to protect itself and its future. You, as a parent, only have temporary custody. Have we failed in our "trust?"

[Col. Flagg]

Some here in this forum who embrace polygamy need to understand that women are not property either.

[Lizzy60]

I don't believe babies belong to society. They belong to God. We only have temporary stewardship.

A society, as well as a parent, could decide that particular babies are not worthwhile (as property) and then decide to get rid of them..

[Fiannan]

Some here in this forum who embrace polygamy need to understand that women are not property either.

Some here on this forum who attack polygamy need to understand that women have the insight and judgement to choose if they want to live in a polygamist family or not.

Weird how that gets forgotten.

[Juliet]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type.

Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood.

However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother.

A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby.

Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.

Nature doesn't care about woman's feelings. It cares about survival of the species.

And in the case of whose life is more important, it chooses the baby.

Therefore, the baby has the right to live and recieve proper nutrients via the mother's body even if it means to the detriment of the mother.

Therefore, according to nature, the baby has the right to life ahead of the mothers' right to life.

There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

[Original_Intent]

I don't believe babies belong to society. They belong to God. We only have temporary stewardship.

A society, as well as a parent, could decide that particular babies are not worthwhile (as property) and then decide to get rid of them..

Stated perfectly.

[passionflower]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

[Fiannan]

I wish the Church would make a statement about the abortion issue. I mean they took the opportunity to throw a zinger at President Trump over the alleged (fake news) thing about pulling immigrant families away from each other, but what about something involving legislative proposals to allow abortion right when the mother is in labor? Talk about pulling families apart.

https://www.facebook.com/ForAmerica/vid ... =2&theater

[Durzan]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

FYI, the pro-choice people who use woman's rights of bodily sovereignty to support abortion are essentially saying that the baby is an intruding parasite that can put the mother in harms way. Therefore, she must consent to its presence or its got to go, the same way we attack and kill other parasites like ringworm, tapeworms, etc.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

Citation please. For the bolded part.

[LadyT]

A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

I have never heard this. My mom was a family history consultant for 25 years and she never heard of this. My sister was told by a temple president that a child follows a righteous mother if they are not sealed to both parents. You cannot do temple work without sealing the parents first. Or so I have found while doing temple work.
Do you have a reference for this? I would like to study it more.

[AI2.0]

This is another example of the Marxist socialist doctrine which is becoming fully embraced by the Democrat party. We know that a child is not and should not be property, but this is the first step to human beings being property of the State. Under a communist regime, people are property and they can be killed by the state.

I believe at this point, democrats would not consent to the state being able to determine who can and can't live, but they have successfully sold the practice of Abortion to the people, because they like the convenience. This dulls them to things down the road. It dulls them to the state being able to practice Euthanasia and cull the population of those that are deemed to be a drain or undesirable. When they get Socialized medicine, they must have the ability to withhold treatment and even actively kill those who are a drain on resources.

It's pretty amazing to see that the party who fought so hard to remove the right of states to use the death penalty (because they said it was inhumane and cruel and unusual) are now the most ardent promoters of the killing of our children. I think we are seeing a practice of modern day human sacrifice, more reprehensible than the ancient pagans because of the level of enlightenment today. We should know better, and I think they do--but they want the sick, selfish convenience of being able to kill their babies if they are not wanted. The marxists/leninists want it because it is necessary for continuing the total takeover and destruction of our rights, given us by God. A God they denounce and want to overthrow--taking his place as the 'God' of this world.

[AI2.0]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

"A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone..'

I need to call for reference on this, Passionflower. I'm certain this is false. Even if they didn't have the name of the spouse exactly, they will say 'Mrs. Smith' or 'Mr. Jones' if they have proof of a marriage, but not the full name. There has to be a couple who have been sealed, because they only seal children to a couple.

The child doesn't belong to their father anymore than they belong to their mother, the eternal relationship is for a child to have a mother and a father. The term 'fathers' in 'turning the hearts to the fathers' means 'Fathers' as in generic for our Ancestors--and half of them are women. It's generic as in Mankind--which means both men and women.

[passionflower]

A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

I have never heard this. My mom was a family history consultant for 25 years and she never heard of this. My sister was told by a temple president that a child follows a righteous mother if they are not sealed to both parents. You cannot do temple work without sealing the parents first. Or so I have found while doing temple work.
Do you have a reference for this? I would like to study it more.

It isn't uncommon for those seeking to send their family names through the temple to run across certain roadblocks, such as a family with an known father but an unknown mother. In this case, a child or children can be sealed to the father alone . Though not ideal, it can "legally" happen. Of course, eventually it is hoped the mother will be found out and she will be added to the line along with her own father and mother, etc.

A child or group of children cannot be sealed to a known mother and an unknown father for obvious reasons. I have known of a case where an illegitimate child was sealed to his mother and her own father ( who was the child's grandfather ), though. This is done to give the child a sealing ordinance and to help the temple work not get stalled here when work remains to be done for others further up the line.

I am going to guess you have a personal issue with this. The person your sister should have asked her question to was probably the Temple Recorder. He deals directly with this stuff all the time.

[LadyT]

A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

I have never heard this. My mom was a family history consultant for 25 years and she never heard of this. My sister was told by a temple president that a child follows a righteous mother if they are not sealed to both parents. You cannot do temple work without sealing the parents first. Or so I have found while doing temple work.
Do you have a reference for this? I would like to study it more.

It isn't uncommon for those seeking to send their family names through the temple to run across certain roadblocks, such as a family with an known father but an unknown mother. In this case, a child or children can be sealed to the father alone . Though not ideal, it can "legally" happen. Of course, eventually it is hoped the mother will be found out and she will be added to the line along with her own father and mother, etc.

A child or group of children cannot be sealed to a known mother and an unknown father for obvious reasons. I have known of a case where an illegitimate child was sealed to his mother and her own father ( who was the child's grandfather ), though. This is done to give the child a sealing ordinance and to help the temple work not get stalled here when work remains to be done for others further up the line.

I am going to guess you have a personal issue with this. The person your sister should have asked her question to was probably the Temple Recorder. He deals directly with this stuff all the time.

It was the temple president. She had asked our bishop. He didn't know. He asked the stake president and it went up and up. She met with the temple president and that's when he told her this. Her daughter from her first marriage is now sealed to her step dad. It's not a problem for me.

Nothing I have ever found says you can seal a child to only a father. Can you show me a reference for it?
I know it can be Mrs. Brown and mr Brown. But I have not seen a thing that says the father alone.

[Ezra]

I don't believe babies belong to society. They belong to God. We only have temporary stewardship.

A society, as well as a parent, could decide that particular babies are not worthwhile (as property) and then decide to get rid of them..

Stated perfectly.

The thought that society has any say in any individual or group is how “Social justic” lies and manipulations are born.

[MMbelieve]

How can a child be sealed to a single father or mother even? There is no “sealing” unless there is a marriage. Makes no sense to me. The sealing is coming from a marriage, not a righteous man or woman alone.

[LadyT]

How can a child be sealed to a single father or mother even? There is no “sealing” unless there is a marriage. Makes no sense to me. The sealing is coming from a marriage, not a righteous man or woman alone.

I said a child follows a righteous mother. If there isn't a sealing. It's a big difference. Or in this case even a father in the picture. Very long story.

[MMbelieve]

How can a child be sealed to a single father or mother even? There is no “sealing” unless there is a marriage. Makes no sense to me. The sealing is coming from a marriage, not a righteous man or woman alone.

I said a child follows a righteous mother. If there isn't a sealing. It's a big difference. Or in this case even a father in the picture. Very long story.

My question was to the idea that a child can be sealed in the temple to a worthy father alone. I dont see how thats policy let alone possible.

As far as your comment,
I see a child following a worthy mother after this mortal life where she will be given a worthy male and their family will be together forever. A mother whos worthy shouldnt lose any of her children that are also worthy.

Then again, the celestial realm is likely quite a close knit place where families associate as we will all be sealed together anyways as the family of god.

[Lizzy60]

About sealings to fathers and unknown mothers -- I participated in many proxy sealings where the child was sealed to [as much of the father's name as was known] and "the mother". In many genealogical records, only the father was listed. But of course there was a mother, and God knows who that mother is, even if we don't have a record. There is really no such thing as a single father, just a child with a mother whose name is not known.

[LadyT]

How can a child be sealed to a single father or mother even? There is no “sealing” unless there is a marriage. Makes no sense to me. The sealing is coming from a marriage, not a righteous man or woman alone.

I said a child follows a righteous mother. If there isn't a sealing. It's a big difference. Or in this case even a father in the picture. Very long story.

My question was to the idea that a child can be sealed in the temple to a worthy father alone. I dont see how thats policy let alone possible.

As far as your comment,
I see a child following a worthy mother after this mortal life where she will be given a worthy male and their family will be together forever. A mother whos worthy shouldnt lose any of her children that are also worthy.

Then again, the celestial realm is likely quite a close knit place where families associate as we will all be sealed together anyways as the family of god.

I agree. I don't get how a child can be sealed to a father alone.

[passionflower]

A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

I have never heard this. My mom was a family history consultant for 25 years and she never heard of this. My sister was told by a temple president that a child follows a righteous mother if they are not sealed to both parents. You cannot do temple work without sealing the parents first. Or so I have found while doing temple work.
Do you have a reference for this? I would like to study it more.

It isn't uncommon for those seeking to send their family names through the temple to run across certain roadblocks, such as a family with an known father but an unknown mother. In this case, a child or children can be sealed to the father alone . Though not ideal, it can "legally" happen. Of course, eventually it is hoped the mother will be found out and she will be added to the line along with her own father and mother, etc.

A child or group of children cannot be sealed to a known mother and an unknown father for obvious reasons. I have known of a case where an illegitimate child was sealed to his mother and her own father ( who was the child's grandfather ), though. This is done to give the child a sealing ordinance and to help the temple work not get stalled here when work remains to be done for others further up the line.

I am going to guess you have a personal issue with this. The person your sister should have asked her question to was probably the Temple Recorder. He deals directly with this stuff all the time.

It was the temple president. She had asked our bishop. He didn't know. He asked the stake president and it went up and up. She met with the temple president and that's when he told her this. Her daughter from her first marriage is now sealed to her step dad. It's not a problem for me.

Nothing I have ever found says you can seal a child to only a father. Can you show me a reference for it?
I know it can be Mrs. Brown and mr Brown. But I have not seen a thing that says the father alone.

If I gave you a direct reference, I would be going into somebody elses' genealogy and temple work in order to do so. And maybe those who did this had to get "special" permission in order to do so, but I KNOW it has happened, and not just once, either.

Can you not see the logic of this? This helps temple work to keep going down the line and not be stalled by one unknown wife, therefore, I think this is a great idea. I am not sure what the problem is? The husband is not left forever without a wife. Eventually the wife will be found and sealed in, and yes that must happen, but in the mean time we get are able to move on with our temple work.

Isn't that great?

[Thinker]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type. Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood. However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother. A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby...
Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.
There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

Good points, Juliet!
I’ve heard and argued that the only time abortion may be moral is when the life of the mother is in fatal danger and aborting the baby would save at least one life, rather than lose 2. Yet, the way nature works, once new life is conceived, begins human LIFE and everything works toward developing that little, miraculous body.

One aspect that I believe constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is that these babies are often killed by ripping their bodies apart, after 8 weeks gestation when all body systems (including nervous/pain system) are intact. Utah is the 1st state to require pain killers to babies over 20 weeks gestation, before killing the baby in abortion - because it is undeniable that babies can feel it at that point and likely way before. The following ultrasound video of an abortion at 12 weeks ought to be required viewing of any woman wanting an abortion...

As you mentioned, to deny this right to life that nature generally ensures, is insane. Yet, how many of us have done stupid things - especially when young when we didn’t realize the full impact? So, although it breaks my heart to know of the suffering of these little ones who have no voice, I also try to remember that media, government etc has deceived many into believing that abortion is ok - because it’s “legal.” They don’t show the ugly facts - like the pain the child endures in being killed, the psychological and often reproductive illness mothers who had abortions, face - often for the rest of their lives.

[Lizzy60]

How can a child be sealed to a single father or mother even? There is no “sealing” unless there is a marriage. Makes no sense to me. The sealing is coming from a marriage, not a righteous man or woman alone.

I said a child follows a righteous mother. If there isn't a sealing. It's a big difference. Or in this case even a father in the picture. Very long story.

My question was to the idea that a child can be sealed in the temple to a worthy father alone. I dont see how thats policy let alone possible.

As far as your comment,
I see a child following a worthy mother after this mortal life where she will be given a worthy male and their family will be together forever. A mother whos worthy shouldnt lose any of her children that are also worthy.

Then again, the celestial realm is likely quite a close knit place where families associate as we will all be sealed together anyways as the family of god.

I agree. I don't get how a child can be sealed to a father alone.

LadyT, as I said in the post just before this one of yours, the child is not actually sealed to a father alone, but to a father whose name (entire name or partial name) is known, and "the mother". We know every child has a birth mother, but in days past her name was sometimes not recorded.

I have served as a proxy for many of these sealings, probably hundreds.

[LadyT]

I said a child follows a righteous mother. If there isn't a sealing. It's a big difference. Or in this case even a father in the picture. Very long story.

My question was to the idea that a child can be sealed in the temple to a worthy father alone. I dont see how thats policy let alone possible.

As far as your comment,
I see a child following a worthy mother after this mortal life where she will be given a worthy male and their family will be together forever. A mother whos worthy shouldnt lose any of her children that are also worthy.

Then again, the celestial realm is likely quite a close knit place where families associate as we will all be sealed together anyways as the family of god.

I agree. I don't get how a child can be sealed to a father alone.

LadyT, as I said in the post just before this one of yours, the child is not actually sealed to a father alone, but to a father whose name (entire name or partial name) is known, and "the mother". We know every child has a birth mother, but in days past her name was sometimes not recorded.

I have served as a proxy for many of these sealings, probably hundreds.

The one we were asking about says they can be sealed to the fathers alone. No mention of the mother at all. They are still being sealed to a mother and a father the way to talk about.

[passionflower]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

FYI, the pro-choice people who use woman's rights of bodily sovereignty to support abortion are essentially saying that the baby is an intruding parasite that can put the mother in harms way. Therefore, she must consent to its presence or its got to go, the same way we attack and kill other parasites like ringworm, tapeworms, etc.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

Citation please. For the bolded part.

For the "bolded part" a child can be sealed to a father for the time being, or temporarily, until when the mother can be documented. I didn't mean that this would remain a permanent situation forever. I learned this by experience with helping other people submit temple work, and I remember it well, not by learning it somewhere that can be "cited".

While I was a family history consultant and a worker in the family history center, the practice of putting a name in the temple with just a Mrs was discontinued because it caused a whole lot more problems than it solved with people really abusing it. I wouldn't know right now if this has been reinstated but I hope not.

I didn't mean to derail this thread. I still believe that children inherently belong to their fathers and the scriptures and the Patriarchal order support this.

Now about what you said about abortion rights. So you are saying that women are no longer thinking that the fetus is just a part of their own body but a parasite, and they should have the right to get that parasite removed? OK, so a parasite and a fetus might have a few things things in common, but that does not make them the same thing at all. What an inhumane, low and ghastly comparison.

Would these women enjoy thinking their own mothers thought of them as "parasites"? I mean, if we are going to go with this, then a newborn infant, though disconnected, is still a parasite if nursed, so I guess is going to be expendable until a fully independent adult ( as if there are any these days!)