Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[Questing Beast]

The OT is manifestly a Jewish creation with their ancient political agenda behind it. Therefore the "God" of the Jewish scriptures is not portrayed the same as in the NT, much less in Joseph Smith's theology....

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

I never said that the OT wasn't a Jewish document. What I said was the Saints accept it as the word of God.

See Article of Faith #8 "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God".

[USU78]

If you're going to terminate another genetically distinct human life at any point in its existence, you'd better d@mn well have a pretty compelling reason.

[USU78]

The OT is manifestly a Jewish creation with their ancient political agenda behind it. Therefore the "God" of the Jewish scriptures is not portrayed the same as in the NT, much less in Joseph Smith's theology....

The G-d of the NT scriptures is manifestly a Jewish creation with their ancient political agenda behind it.

[CV75]

God destroying with natural destruction isn't equal to abortion by humans on other humans. No example there where God is confirming the decision of man to kill or abort a human.

God commands man to do abortions? is that what your saying? To prevent further trouble or unfair disadvantage?

Please give an example. I've never heard of such a thing.

So, what your saying is that God says it's ok to abort little humans because they are innocent and will surely go to Heaven if aborted/killed?

If God confirms by revelation that a choice to abort is acceptable, that is on a par with God commanding the Israelites to wipe out another group of people (among whom were pregnant women). This is an example of preventing future trouble and disadvantage against His people by removing those who would destroy them temporally or spiritually. as mentioned on another thread, removing such people is merciful to them as well. Only God can judge the right time and occasion for such things to take place.

Since it is clear that God commanded the destruction of groups, which included their pregnant women and unborn children, God would confirm by revelation that a choice to abort is acceptable when the unborn child’s entry into mortality as an infant is not necessary for his eternal salvation. Otherwise He would not confirm the decision to abort. For some unborn children, it is essential for their salvation that they continue into childhood, and in these cases He would not confirm the decision and perhaps even ensure their survival through revelation or other intervention.

In the cases of saving the life of the mother, incest, and rape, the Lord would confirm the decision to abort if the child and/or the mother would be left in conditions that are “more than they can bear” (this has been addressed on other threads recently) and thus frustrate the Lord’s plan to the extent that they or others would be spiritually destroyed as a result. This has to be done on a case by case basis. Church policy only states that such instances are neither automatically condoned nor punished, but must be guided by revelation for the sakes of those involved.

[Hughes]

If God confirms by revelation that a choice to abort is acceptable, that is on a par with God commanding the Israelites to wipe out another group of people (among whom were pregnant women). This is an example of preventing future trouble and disadvantage against His people by removing those who would destroy them temporally or spiritually. as mentioned on another thread, removing such people is merciful to them as well. Only God can judge the right time and occasion for such things to take place.

Since it is clear that God commanded the destruction of groups, which included their pregnant women and unborn children, God would confirm by revelation that a choice to abort is acceptable when the unborn child’s entry into mortality as an infant is not necessary for his eternal salvation. Otherwise He would not confirm the decision to abort. For some unborn children, it is essential for their salvation that they continue into childhood, and in these cases He would not confirm the decision and perhaps even ensure their survival through revelation or other intervention.

In the cases of saving the life of the mother, incest, and rape, the Lord would confirm the decision to abort if the child and/or the mother would be left in conditions that are “more than they can bear” (this has been addressed on other threads recently) and thus frustrate the Lord’s plan to the extent that they or others would be spiritually destroyed as a result. This has to be done on a case by case basis. Church policy only states that such instances are neither automatically condoned nor punished, but must be guided by revelation for the sakes of those involved.

Thanks for your explanation. That is much clearer.

I disagree with analogies that compare the Jewish Nation to us as individuals. We (individually) aren't a theocratic nation run by OT prophets. And the Commandment, "Do not murder" is to individuals, not Nations.

And abortions are murder no matter how you slice it.

If God gives you a revelation to violate one of the 10 commandments (do not murder in this case), then you obey the revelation?

[CV75]

If God gives you a revelation to violate one of the 10 commandments (do not murder in this case), then you obey the revelation?

I almost used Nephi killing Laban as an example, but the record doesn't indicate whether Laban was pregnant. But the example does show that God can command or confirm the need to end someone's life. Perhaps another thread might better adress the scriptural context of what it means to God to murder.

[AmorLibertas]

As a libertarian, I maintain that it is the duty of government to protect the rights and liberties of those under its jurisdictional protection. The question then becomes, at what point does a human life come under the jurisdictional protection of government? Does it begin at conception? If so, what is the governmental duty to "in vitro" embryos? Does it begin at implantation? If so, why then and not before? If after a certain length of time or development, why then? If only after birth, why then?

I'm of the opinion that there is a significant and important distinction between a zygote or a cluster of undifferentiated cells or even an embryo in the first few weeks of development and a fetus that has reached a point physiological development capable of supporting cognition. Prior to this stage of development currently estimated by most experts to be no earlier than 12 weeks from conception, it is my opinion that the embryo or fetus is not a human being with constitutionally protected rights any more than any other growth or parasite in one's body. As such, during this first trimester, I maintain that it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason without any restriction or interference.

Furthermore, I view the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy as being different from the supposed right to kill a developing fetus. Sometimes, the preservation of the life of one necessitates significant risks or the avoidance of potentially life preserving or prolonging treatments for the other. In such a circumstance the role of the state is only to ensure that the rights of each are considered, but not to make the determination of which person receives life preserving or prolonging treatment at the expense of the other in equal peril.

If, or as I suspect when, in the future it becomes possible to terminate an unwanted pregnancy while preserving the life of the fetus, I would support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason after the first 12 weeks provided the necessary steps to preserve the life of the fetus are taken. I do not support the idea or notion that it is a woman's right to ensure her unwanted pregnancy being terminated results in the death of the unwanted (by her) sentient fetus.

I do not understand how a person can consider all abortion morally wrong on the basis that it is murder of an innocent child and then go on to excuse such "murder" if the one being murdered exists due to rape or incest. The child conceived in rape is no less innocent than one conceived in love; its murder should not be considered any less heinous. Such justification might equally be applicable to murdering the child of rape after its birth under such a rationale; which causes me to question the rationale being used by such individuals for prohibiting abortion in the first place.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Abortion no matter how repugnant you view them are not murder.

Murder is the illegal taking of another humans life. Abortion is by definition not murder.

[LeSellers]

Hughes:Murder is the illegal taking of another humans life. Abortion is by definition not murder.

It depends, of course, on whose law you refer to. Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. It is, for instance, justified to take a human life if the "victim" was attempting to take your child's life (or just take your child). In some jurisdictions that is illegal, but it is not murder. This is why we have a variety of "manslaughter" charges and various types of homicide.

Which is why abortion may still be murder (in some cases): it may be justified to kill the child if, for instance, his continued gestation would kill her. But, absent this sort of justification, killing the child is premeditated murder. It's just that no one will (or even can) bring legal charges against the mother or the slayer.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I don't have a problem with justifiable homicide. IE; self defense laws. I am against the blanket assertion that all abortions are murder.

[3DOP]

Hey Mudcat...I have snipped a few lines.

Mudcat

Not Hughes, but I hope you don't mind me interjecting...

3DOP

Surely not. Its your thread and I was hoping you would participate.

Mudcat

I understand you are saying that you disagree with abortion in all cases and can't endorse a position that agrees with it, or at least accepts it in certain circumstances.

3DOP

That is correct. I do not see how any of the extraordinary circumstances that have been suggested overthrow the priority for innocent human life. Now, if like most atheists, you doubt that a fetus IS innocent human life, we have a different equation. But Christians believe that Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth immediately after Jesus was conceived and Elizabeth proclaimed how her own baby leapt in the womb at hearing the voice of the "mother of my Lord". Mary was already a mother early in the first trimester. She wasn't a mother of protoplasm, but of a Person, Jesus. Elizabeth said, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb". Would she say that if nobody was even in there? At conception, that which was conceived in Our Lady's womb was Somebody, the Lord.

Mudcat

To clarify your position I would ask you directly.

Do you believe that abortion for any circumstance should be illegal and restricted under all circumstances?

3DOP

There are licit procedures which can cause an abortion to occur. Such procedures may be obligatory to save the life of the mother, which is equally important. But it cannot be admitted that it is permissible to kill the innocent fruit of the womb because of the way the fruit came to be conceived.

Mudcat, are you really comfortable with saying that this innocent human life must be saved because its father and mother are happily married, but that innocent human life may be slain because its father and mother were close relatives? That has to make pro-choice advocates doubt that you can really believe that it is innocent human life. I don't even think the pro-choice crowd usually has the stomach to kill innocent human life. They draw a line further back than we Christians and don't even necessarily believe in souls and all that stuff. In that sense, they would have less blood on their hands than the Christians who justify that the offspring of a rape or incest may be killed even though it is innocent human life.

Mudcat

If so, what charges should be laid upon the woman that kills her unborn child?

3DOP

The act is a capital crime. The punishment should be commensurate with the degree of culpability for all parties concerned. The potential guilt and the charges shouldn't be just for the mother but for EVERYONE involved. All of the accomplices to the crime. But it isn't only about just the death of an innocent human life and court proceedings. This is a frightening sin. Can you imagine being a surgeon who makes money doing that? Of course, like any concentration camp guard, you grow numb. You would have to. It would seem like an awful and fearful judgment day looms for unrepentant doctors and mothers and parents and husbands and boyfriends who had the temerity to blithely recommend the destruction of the fruit of the womb.

(The above is not addressing the relevant (heh) question of how it goes when one or more of the parties involved claim private revelation from God.)

Regards,

3DOP

[3DOP]

Hey Mudcat,

I was composing my post before seeing what Amor Libertas wrote. Wow. Exactly what I was thinking.

[thesometimesaint]

Needless to say I disagree.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, are you really comfortable with saying that this innocent human life must be saved because its father and mother are happily married, but that innocent human life may be slain because its father and mother were close relatives? That has to make pro-choice advocates doubt that you can really believe that it is innocent human life. I don't even think the pro-choice crowd usually has the stomach to kill innocent human life. They draw a line further back than we Christians and don't even necessarily believe in souls and all that stuff. In that sense, they would have less blood on their hands than the Christians who justify that the offspring of a rape or incest may be killed even though it is innocent human life.

Bold mine. I am not taking the position that it isn't human life under special circumstance. I actually think from the point of conception it is human life. "Innocent" is a difficult term for me to actually agree with, because IMO there is an inherent sin nature to all of humans at all stages. However, I would certainly agree that the unborn child is not at a point that it would be accountable and if aborted it's spirit would be with God.

I don't want to make to much of the semantics, but I did want to clarify. I dunno what the official stance is on the eternal destiny of aborted children in a Catholic paradigm, given that they were unbaptized. Don't want to derail on that, but I am curious. But I had been under the impression that a Catholic would likely think they would go to Hell, but I am uncertain.

Earlier in the thread, I stated I was theologically out of bounds on my position. I don't think I have good grounds as a Christian to support it. I can't address you as being anything but correct in your points. I am in theological error on the point and I know it.. given that, it is possible that at a future point, I will change my thinking on it to some degree. I am hard headed.. but not intractable.

However, I think in those specific conditions, I would not want to see a family or a woman restricted in their/her options to either bear or abort the unborn child.

This doesn't necessarily mean I am advocating that all raped women who are impregnated should abort. I think similarly for the other circumstances. I do think that a woman who is put into such a situation should have the option though.

Of the three conditions, I don't think I will ever give ground on the life of the mother.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I voted "other"...

When two or more medical professionals determine the mother is almost certain to die.

[LeSellers]

In this message, I am not, I say again, not advocating incest. I do not believe it to be a good relationship, and it should be decried at every opportunity.

We should reject the premise that, ipso facto, incest is an abomination requiring an abortion.

I respect the fact that there are cases of incest that are less than ideal, but the usual arguments simply do not hold water, they are an appeal to emotion, and not to reason.

Not all near-kin matings are harmful to the offspring. Ranchers and other biologists do it with animals all the time. Traits, good and bad, are passed along more readily by such means. It is just as likely that the traits inherited from the related parents are good as bad.

Not all incestuous relationships are coercive, either. The classic example, Œdipous and his mother/wife did not involve his (or her) compelling the other to wed him. (The dynamics are far more complex than that, to be sure, but it was not an overbearing pressure of the type usually advanced when making that argument.)

It is unjustifiable, in my mind, to condemn on the basis of incest alone that a child be killed.

That said, and as I noted above, I am not advocating incest, I am not insinuating that incest be condoned> I am saying simply that, for purposes of the discussion about the allowing of abortion, that incest does not become an absolute reason for killing the unborn child.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

If you're going to terminate another genetically distinct human life at any point in its existence, you'd better d@mn well have a pretty compelling reason.

For the record, totally agreed.

[blueadept]

The only time I think that an abortion is even thinkable is when the life of the mother is threatened.

I'm still going to have to stay with Life of the Mother.

If the question was should abortion be illegal in all cases, except for the cases where the mothers life was in danger, then I'd pick that one.

This is where I stand as well. That option wasn't listed.

I remember visiting a Catholic in the hospital after she had an abortion and was simply waiting to go home to her husband and two children. The doctor told her she probably would die if she carried to term. My partner and I prayed for her speedy recovery to be able to return to her family. If I ever was caught in this situation, the only thing I believe I would have done different would have been to get a second, trusted doctor's opinion since I had issues with her particular doctor.

[mfbukowski]

blueadept:

Hmmmmmm

What if the "life of the mother" would be utterly ruined by the trauma of carrying a rapist's child to full term?

Suppose she could no longer take care of the rest of her children- let's throw in that she is a single mother, and now we have several lives ruined because of the rapist?

And let's throw in that the kids would not be raised in (insert name of favorite church) and so possibly generations would be affected?

(Because she is now in a mental hospital and the kids are in foster homes?)

[blueadept]

blueadept:

Hmmmmmm

What if the "life of the mother" would be utterly ruined by the trauma of carrying a rapist's child to full term?

Suppose she could no longer take care of the rest of her children- let's throw in that she is a single mother, and now we have several lives ruined because of the rapist?

And let's throw in that the kids would not be raised in (insert name of favorite church) and so possibly generations would be affected?

(Because she is now in a mental hospital and the kids are in foster homes?)

I've mentioned in this thread that my girls and I listened to a speaker at the L.A. Religious Education Congress who was adopted because her bio mom was raped. She was an inspiration for my girls and myself. My POV stands even in your scenario. I've talked to my girls the 'what if scenario' and they're fairly positive THEIR choice would be adoption.

Hopefully, their thought of the subject will not be put to the test.

[Nathair/|\]

I think abortions past the first trimester should be severely punishable, and abortions during the first trimester should only allowable in cases of incest, rape, and where the life of the mother would be put in jeopardy, after much fasting, prayer and a decision confirmed by the Holy Ghost for both the woman and her spiritual adviser that such is the best course of action.

I think there is enough doubt about when the spirit enters the body to allow these as guidelines in extreme situations where death or trauma to the mother would be so severe as to make her incapable of recovering a "normal" life afterwards.

It's gotta be a really really bad situation for the mother in other words.

I don't think there are any "absolute" moral prohibitions which may not be altered in extraordinary circumstances, and the law and society need to recognize that.

Would there be abuse of the above guidelines? Of course, unfortunately, but the consequences of forcing a life-changing trauma or perhaps death upon a woman because she has been forcefully impregnated with what may not yet even be a "child" is just intolerable to me.

THAT is the bottom line imo. If we "knew" that the spirit entered the body at the time of conception, I think I would see it differently, but we don't know that.

The world is just too complex a place to make social polices rigid and absolute. There have to be reasonable escape clauses and allowances for extraordinary conditions.

But we also need to make sure that if we allow for special circumstances, that those special circumstances better be there before abortions are allowed.

Perhaps a legal hearing first? Has anyone proposed that? Abortion only legal during the first trimester after a judge says it fits legally restricted parameters?

I endorse this message %100.

[3DOP]

This is where I stand as well. That option wasn't listed.

I remember visiting a Catholic in the hospital after she had an abortion and was simply waiting to go home to her husband and two children. The doctor told her she probably would die if she carried to term. My partner and I prayed for her speedy recovery to be able to return to her family. If I ever was caught in this situation, the only thing I believe I would have done different would have been to get a second, trusted doctor's opinion since I had issues with her particular doctor.

I hate to be the fly in the ointment because we are soooo close. But what about the certain death of the child if it is aborted? Probable death of mother vs. certain death of the child. I choose the possible life of both. I do not know why the mother is to be favored over the baby unless she is special treatment for being more valuable. It certainly seems like preferential treatment. Pius XII said the following about that tendency:

The inviolability of the life of an innocent human being does not depend on its greater or lesser value.

[blueadept]

I hate to be the fly in the ointment because we are soooo close. But what about the certain death of the child if it is aborted? Probable death of mother vs. certain death of the child. I choose the possible life of both. I do not know why the mother is to be favored over the baby unless she is special treatment for being more valuable. It certainly seems like preferential treatment. Pius XII said the following about that tendency:

When I talked to the lady during my LoM assignment, I know the doctor told her she would have died and that's the way it was conveyed to me from her. So she viewed it as certain death for her vs. certain death of the child. Since I know the doctor's tendencies since our town only had 2 OB-GYN doctor's for years, my choice would have been to get a 2nd opinion of a doctor not in our town. People tend to trust their doctor's opinions. I just shared the thought that I would have involved a priest and 2nd doctor's opinion if I would have been in that situation.

My 2 cents

[saemo]

Dr. Peter Kreeft points out that every argument made for abortion can also be made for infanticide.

So is it morally correct to kill an infant because the mother's life is in danger? Or because the mother was raped? Or because it is going to be difficult to raise the child?

If not, what makes it OK to kill the unborn?

If it is not a human life growing from the time of conception, what sort of alien life is it?