Jump to content

"The Church Supports Abortion"


rpn

Recommended Posts

On another thread, someone claimed "The church supports abortion". And another poster seemed to go along with that statement, though modifying it. (This was in the context of public life.) I am trying to figure out how anyone can think that statement is true, when Handbook 21.4.1 makes it clear that people who participate in abortion, pay for them, arrange them, even encourage them may be subject to church discipline, and even cautions people that not even the exceptions should be applied automatically. Clearly the churches position is against abortion, and merely has determined that when abortions are recommended medically or the result of violation of agency, THE church will not take disciplinary action (though that doesn't say it is okay to do it even then.

I know that church members in the political arena who try to explain such nuances have been branded as supporting abortion. I just don't get why a decision not to judge in certain limited circumstances EQUALS supporting them.

Until the other thread, I thought it was just people who didn't really know. But since two posters on this board seem to think it too, I just wonder how they get to their positions, given what the church has said.

Link to comment

There are abortions unfortunately that are necessary.

Abortion

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Gospel Topics

Link to comment

On another thread, someone claimed "The church supports abortion". And another poster seemed to go along with that statement, though modifying it. (This was in the context of public life.) I am trying to figure out how anyone can think that statement is true, when Handbook 21.4.1 makes it clear that people who participate in abortion, pay for them, arrange them, even encourage them may be subject to church discipline, and even cautions people that not even the exceptions should be applied automatically. Clearly the churches position is against abortion, and merely has determined that when abortions are recommended medically or the result of violation of agency, THE church will not take disciplinary action (though that doesn't say it is okay to do it even then.

I know that church members in the political arena who try to explain such nuances have been branded as supporting abortion. I just don't get why a decision not to judge in certain limited circumstances EQUALS supporting them.

Until the other thread, I thought it was just people who didn't really know. But since two posters on this board seem to think it too, I just wonder how they get to their positions, given what the church has said.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, click on Additional Information. Also look up abortion in the Gospel Principles manual, the new one not the old one, as the language has significantly changed.

and when you get into the details you will find that the person seeking an abortion should seek guidance from their Preisthood leader, thus a Priesthood may support the decision.

Link to comment

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, click on Additional Information. Also look up abortion in the Gospel Principles manual, the new one not the old one, as the language has significantly changed.

and when you get into the details you will find that the person seeking an abortion should seek guidance from their Preisthood leader, thus a Priesthood may support the decision.

Leadership does not "give" permission to have an abortion. The decision is solely in the hands of the two involved. After the decision leadership "MAY" take disciplinary action, but not always. The Church is against abortion, yet it does acknowledge there may be extinuating circumstances in certain situations. The Church does not take an absolute position that abortion is always wrong similar to the Catholic Church.

Link to comment

Leadership does not "give" permission to have an abortion. The decision is solely in the hands of the two involved. After the decision leadership "MAY" take disciplinary action, but not always. The Church is against abortion, yet it does acknowledge there may be extinuating circumstances in certain situations. The Church does not take an absolute position that abortion is always wrong similar to the Catholic Church.

its a good thing I did not say "give permission". I used the condition term "may support"

From Gospels Principles Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

There is seldom any justifiable reason for abortion. Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

Compare the above to the language from the 2009 manual

There is seldom any excuse for abortion. “The only exceptions are when—

I think the change from "excuse" to "justifiable reason" is very significant. As the current language is entirely more compassionate to the "exceptions".

The statement in the OP came from a thread wherein someone was suggesting that supporting abortion put a person is opposition of the Gospel, I pointed out the LDS Church does support abortion; I did not say under "exceptional circumstances" as that qualification was moot to the argument.

For purposes of this thread and to keep it non-political, I still say that the LDS Church supports abortion - though that support is not a blanket support, it is not a support of abortion for convenience, it is seldom, and requires exceptional circumstances, nevertheless, even with those qualifications, it is still support.

IF a couple went to their "local Church Leaders", that under "exceptional circumstances" the local Church Leaders MAY support the decision of the couple to have an abortion.

Link to comment

Isn't the suggestion to consult with church leaders less about getting their support --- the handbook tells leaders not to be telling members to get a divorce or to marry, and the doctrinal reason might be that Heavenly Father cannot hold anyone accountable for messing up in the course of following their bishops advice. So why would in this, bishops be "supporting" or not "supporting". Seems to me that any bishop doing his or her job is there to hear the arguments, to teach the doctrine, and ultimately to decide whether church discipline is required for the decision the couple makes. Are we really thinking any leader is going to say,

"sure go ahead. you're right to do it", rather than "I can see why you are making this choice, and that you have thought and prayed about it, and I do not see a need to call a disciplinary counsel. How can I hep you through this tough time."

Link to comment
its a good thing I did not say "give permission". I used the condition term "may support"

From Gospels Principles Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

Compare the above to the language from the 2009 manual

I think the change from "excuse" to "justifiable reason" is very significant. As the current language is entirely more compassionate to the "exceptions".

The statement in the OP came from a thread wherein someone was suggesting that supporting abortion put a person is opposition of the Gospel, I pointed out the LDS Church does support abortion; I did not say under "exceptional circumstances" as that qualification was moot to the argument.

For purposes of this thread and to keep it non-political, I still say that the LDS Church supports abortion - though that support is not a blanket support, it is not a support of abortion for convenience, it is seldom, and requires exceptional circumstances, nevertheless, even with those qualifications, it is still support.

IF a couple went to their "local Church Leaders", that under "exceptional circumstances" the local Church Leaders MAY support the decision of the couple to have an abortion.

Okay, just to make it clear: if a state wrote its law against murder in such a way as to provide for certain highly "exceptional circumstances" to constitute a valid defence leading to outright acquittal, would it, in your view, be reasonable to describe that state as one that "supports murder?"

Even while said state was diligenly trying, convicting and executing all murderers whose killings did not fall under those exceptional circumstances?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Okay, just to make it clear: if a state wrote its law against murder in such a way as to provide for certain highly "exceptional circumstances" to constitute a valid defence leading to outright acquittal, would it, in your view, be reasonable to describe that state as one that "supports murder?"

Even while said state was diligenly trying, convicting and executing all murderers whose killings did not fall under those exceptional circumstances?

Regards,

Pahoran

how about you attack someone else for a change...here are three people out of the four who have responded to the thread, one of which makes the same claim I made. you are welcome to start your own thread about concerning LDS Doctrine and Murder, rather than highjack this thread.

There are abortions unfortunately that are necessary.

Gospel Topics

The church does support abortion under very limited circumstances and when God has said that it is an acceptable choice.

If someone was wanting to be clear rather than make points, they would state the church's position as "the church allows for abortion in limited circumstances".

Link to comment

I think the word "support" is too much also.

How about understands.

I agree with this. I would never actually support the idea of killing a person, nor would I enjoy doing such a thing or watching someone else do it, but I do understand that it may be necessary and justified in certain situations. Likewise with the Church and abortion.

Link to comment
how about you attack someone else for a change...here are three people out of the four who have responded to the thread, one of which makes the same claim I made. you are welcome to start your own thread about concerning LDS Doctrine and Murder, rather than highjack this thread.

I'm sorry you feel attacked. Of course I'm not trying to hijack the thread; I was pointing out an analogy. If your argument regarding abortion was valid, then the fact that some (most) secular jurisdictions provide exceptions to their murder statutes would logically then mean that such jurisdictions "support" murder.

I think you understood that, really.

The fact is that the Church opposes abortion. It adamantly and unalterably opposes abortions of convenience (which account for the vast majority of all abortions in developed countries, conservatively 95% of them by the last stats I saw) and only very cautiously provides for the possibility of abortion being allowable in a tiny minority of cases.

What this means is that if everyone adopted the Church's approach to abortion, the total abortions performed would reduce to a tiny fraction of the present number -- probably well under 5% thereof. Note that such a reduction in demand in any industry represents the destruction of that industry.

Since the Church's approach would destroy the abortion industry, that seems to fall at least somewhat short of supporting it, wouldn't you say?

Please also note that the Church's stand on abortion has at all times been compassionate. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the unborn child is the primary beneficiary of that compassion.

Lastly, I note with some satisfaction that abortion was the great social crusade of the 1970's. The Church was on the "wrong side of history" at that time, as the ardent abortion advocates could see nothing at all but "a woman's right to choose!" Forty years later, the Church has not quite managed to get around to caving in, has it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I'm sorry you feel attacked. Of course I'm not trying to hijack the thread; I was pointing out an analogy. If your argument regarding abortion was valid, then the fact that some (most) secular jurisdictions provide exceptions to their murder statutes would logically then mean that such jurisdictions "support" murder.

Regards,

Pahoran

there is no reason to believe that you are sorry for it for attacking me and there is no reason to believe that you didn't intend to single me out for your attack. This is evident in that you singled me rather than bluebell who stated that Church does support abortion in certain circumstances. Or Jeff K who stated that essentially that sometime abortions are necessary or whatever terminology he used.

Either way your analogy is poor at best. Can you explain when an abortion is not an abortion?

Link to comment
there is no reason to believe that you are sorry for it for attacking me and there is no reason to believe that you didn't intend to single me out for your attack.

What "attack?"

I asked you a question relating to your position. I said (or implied) nothing about you as a person. If you disagree, please point out what I said that any reasonable person would construe as an "attack."

This is evident in that you singled me rather than bluebell who stated that Church does support abortion in certain circumstances. Or Jeff K who stated that essentially that sometime abortions are necessary or whatever terminology he used.

I didn't "single you out." I addressed your post because your post made the argument that allowing some X in limited and special circumstances equalled "supports X."

Either way your analogy is poor at best. Can you explain when an abortion is not an abortion?

All analogies are imperfect. But it remains valid. That deliberate killing of a person is legally defined as "not murder" in some circumstances merely shifts the goal post. Can you explain when a deliberately killed person is not deliberately killed?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Can you explain when a deliberately killed person is not deliberately killed?

Regards,

Pahoran

speaking of goal post, why have you moved the goal post from murder to deliberate killing? i will not play your goal post moving game.

You are welcome to explain when abortion is not abortion. And how an abortion that is not an abortion fits within the Doctrine, teachings, or policies of the LDS Church.

Link to comment
speaking of goal post, why have you moved the goal post from murder to deliberate killing? i will not play your goal post moving game.

I'm sorry, I thought I was addressing your question. Evidently I was not.

You are welcome to explain when abortion is not abortion. And how an abortion that is not an abortion fits within the Doctrine, teachings, or policies of the LDS Church.

I don't know anything about "when abortion is not abortion." No such concept informs any part of my position.

Nor, AFAICT, does it inform any part of the Church's position on abortion. Which is one of adamant, unyielding and almost total opposition.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I think this view that the LDS Church supports abortion, comes from being juxtaposed against a more strict view, as within the Catholic Church, where rare exception is given for abortion.

"Opposition to abortion is one of the clearest and oldest moral preachings of the Roman Catholic Church; it dates back to the 1st century. The destruction of the fetus, the church teaches, is a morally indefensible attack on human life. The only exception is "indirect abortion," or abortion as an incidental byproduct of a necessary attempt to save the mother's life. Ectopic pregnancy and cancer of the uterus are grounds for indirect abortion. Rape and incest are not exceptions, because the fetus conceived has the same right to life as any other fetus."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923637,00.html#ixzz1TumsVQ00

Link to comment

I don't know anything about "when abortion is not abortion." No such concept informs any part of my position.

Regards,

Pahoran

that you have moved the goal posts, is blinding evidence that you know quite well that the concept 'when abortion is not abortion' informs on your position.

If "exceptional circumstance coupled with consultation with Priesthood leaders and receipt of spiritual confirmation through earnest prayer" abortion is not abortion then what is it? What is the medical and politically correct term that should be for said defined procedure?

Link to comment
that you have moved the goal posts, is blinding evidence that you know quite well that the concept 'when abortion is not abortion' informs on your position.

And yet you accused me of attacking you?

I "know quite well" that the concept of "when abortion is not abortion" informs no part of my position. You have leaped to a conclusion that is supported by no evidence.

And I have moved no goal posts.

If "exceptional circumstance coupled with consultation with Priesthood leaders and receipt of spiritual confirmation through earnest prayer" abortion is not abortion then what is it? What is the medical and politically correct term that should be for said defined procedure?

I have never thought of them as anything other than abortions.

For the last time: the notion of abortion not being abortion has nothing whatever to do with my position.

Kindly refrain from demanding that I account to you for your own erroneous assumptions.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
yes your own erroneous assumptions, which is why you moved the goal post from murder to deliberate killing.

I wasn't moving any goal posts. It's an analogy, Frankie. I could explain in meticulous detail what I had in mind, but I doubt such an explanation would help you at all. I suggest you let it go.

Now do you have any other questions you'd like to ask me, or does your argument rely upon telling me what my own position is?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...