Permissibility Of Abortion

[MiserereNobis]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church. From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

From the Catholic perspective, there is no permissibility in these areas. This comes from our belief that life, the creation of the soul, begins at the moment of conception. It certainly would be a difficult burden, a difficult cross, for a women to bear the child of her rapist, but it is hard to see why the child's life should be terminated in that case. The same applies for incest. Perhaps in the case of incest the idea as well is that the child runs a chance of being malformed, but this line of thinking seems to open up the path for aborting, say, a fetus with Down's Syndrome. In the case of the health of the mother, is the self-defense exemption? We can kill without sin in self-defense. However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

[bu11fr0g]

Ensoulment does not occur until birth in LDS teachings.

[bu11fr0g]

Catholics also view murder as qualitatively different than abortion. LDS even moreso. LDS are not opposed to capitol punishment. I think these philosophocal differences as well as greater tolerance of individual choice on these matters combines to generally allow abortion with careful consideration under these circumstances. It is still not an amoral decision.

[Calm]

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church. From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

It is allowed because of agency (the woman did not have a choice in becoming pregnant in the case of incest and rape) as well as that it would be a hardship on the woman's family as well as the child if it survived if they lost their mother. Because we believe that all spirits will have the chance to be born into physical vessels, abortion does not deprive them of that chance. Abortion for convenience is a sin because it is a misuse of the creative power, not because it eternally harms the spirit of the potential child or robs it of a chance at life.

Where women are emotionally and physically capable of carrying the child, they are supported wholeheartedly if they chose to do so in the case of rape. Incest usually involves minors who are less emotionally mature and thus under more danger of being even more traumatized by pregnancy as well as the incest.

Edited September 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[mapman]

I think that abortion should be illegal in most cases, but it should be noted that part of the church's statement on abortion says that "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."

Unlike a lot of groups, the church has never called abortion murder. I don't think that the church has ever said when the spirit enters a child, so it isn't really clear whether it should be considered killing a person.

[ERayR]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church. From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

From the Catholic perspective, there is no permissibility in these areas. This comes from our belief that life, the creation of the soul, begins at the moment of conception. It certainly would be a difficult burden, a difficult cross, for a women to bear the child of her rapist, but it is hard to see why the child's life should be terminated in that case. The same applies for incest. Perhaps in the case of incest the idea as well is that the child runs a chance of being malformed, but this line of thinking seems to open up the path for aborting, say, a fetus with Down's Syndrome. In the case of the health of the mother, is the self-defense exemption? We can kill without sin in self-defense. However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

I can only give you my take on this as I do not speak authoritatively for the LDS Church. In the first instance when the mothers life is in danger. It is a choice that must be made taking into account that a young family may be left without their mother. So in essence it is balancing the needs of the living family with the needs of the unborn. Certainly both are important but to take a chance that the living family will not have a mother and the unborn may still perish also is certainly a serious consideration.

In the case of incest the perspective mother is in most cases but a child herself and certainly not prepared physically, emotionally or economically for this event.

In the case of rape. This one is certainly more problematic to me but I understand a woman may never be able to emotionally handle giving birth to and raising the child of her rapist. Giving such a child for adoption can and does put a very real emotional toll on the mother and any other children she has. Each child wondering if mom will someday give them away.

[altersteve]

It may make more sense when you consider that we believe the creation of the human spirit happens long before the moment of conception.

[altersteve]

From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

"The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion

[Rivers]

I believe that these exceptions are very gray areas that should be handled one case at a time. The leaders of our church have counseled that each case should be something that should be prayed about and be discussed with the bishop. These exceptional curumstances are not taken lightly.

And I hope this doesn't take us too far off of the subject but I am curious about the Catholoc church's stance against birth control. I know the LDS church used to be against it as well. What exaclty is the reason for birth control being a sin?

[altersteve]

I believe that these exceptions are very gray areas that should be handled one case at a time. The leaders of our church have counseled that each case should be something that should be prayed about and be discussed with the bishop. These exceptional curumstances are not taken lightly.

And I hope this doesn't take us too far off of the subject but I am curious about the Catholoc church's stance against birth control. I know the LDS church used to be against it as well. What exaclty is the reason for birth control being a sin?

I'm curious about that too. I've always thought it's because sexual relations are only to be used to procreate, but if that's the case (and I could be wrong), then is it considered a sin for a married couple to have sexual relations if one of them is infertile?

[MiserereNobis]

It is allowed because of agency (the woman did not have a choice in becoming pregnant in the case of incest and rape)

I can see what you are saying here, but it leaves out the fact that a fetus is being destroyed nonetheless. What would be the difference between aborting the fetus of a woman who was raped or killing the newborn child of the woman who was raped? In both cases, the woman did not have agency -- she didn't choose to become pregnant.

Because we believe that all spirits will have the chance to be born into physical vessels, abortion does not deprive them of that chance.

bu11fr0g stated above that ensoulment does not take place until birth. If he is right, an aborted fetus has not yet received its soul, and so that spirit did not receive its physical vessel. Or perhaps you mean that the spirit will be given another body later on?

Abortion for convenience is a sin because it is a misuse of the creative power, not because it eternally harms the spirit of the potential child or robs it of a chance at life.

Can you elaborate on this? How it is a misuse of the creative power? I would say that abortion most definitely robs the child of its chance at life, since the child is killed before having much of a life.

[MiserereNobis]

I think that abortion should be illegal in most cases, but it should be noted that part of the church's statement on abortion says that "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."

Thank you for the authoritative statement from the church. It is very interesting to me; I guess the LDS church is officially less pro-life than I had assumed based on my interactions with members. I would have thought that the church would have favored pro-life legislation.

Unlike a lot of groups, the church has never called abortion murder. I don't think that the church has ever said when the spirit enters a child, so it isn't really clear whether it should be considered killing a person.

Ok, so bu11fr0g's statement was his own speculation. Perhaps he can offer us a reference to back it up.

[MiserereNobis]

In the case of incest the perspective mother is in most cases but a child herself and certainly not prepared physically, emotionally or economically for this event.

Can't this same logic be applied to young teen-age pregnancies as well? I would say the stronger argument would be one that focuses on the fact that the girl did not choose, not that it will be hard on her, otherwise we could open up abortion to all teen pregnancies.

In the case of rape. This one is certainly more problematic to me but I understand a woman may never be able to emotionally handle giving birth to and raising the child of her rapist. Giving such a child for adoption can and does put a very real emotional toll on the mother and any other children she has. Each child wondering if mom will someday give them away.

It is indeed a terrible cross to bear. We should pray for those women who have the courage to honor the life of the child conceived in rape. It certainly requires the grace of God.

[MiserereNobis]

And I hope this doesn't take us too far off of the subject but I am curious about the Catholoc church's stance against birth control. I know the LDS church used to be against it as well. What exaclty is the reason for birth control being a sin?

There are a few answers to this. First of all, the purpose of marriage from the Catholic point-of-view is two-fold: procreation and conjugal love. This is based on natural law. To artificially contracept thus breaks the first purpose and introduces an abberation that could affect the second purpose. Pope Paul VI discussed this in his encyclical on birth control:

Union and Procreation

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.

Since the two purposes are inseparable, messing with one can mess with the other. And having sex solely for conjugal love but with an active intention to not procreate often introduces an element of selfishness into the act -- sex without its natural consequence.

There is also the supernatural law that it is God's will that determines when and how one will conceive, especially since in procreation we mirror God's ability to create. Again from the encyclical:

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God."

I'm curious about that too. I've always thought it's because sexual relations are only to be used to procreate, but if that's the case (and I could be wrong), then is it considered a sin for a married couple to have sexual relations if one of them is infertile?

No, not at all, since infertility is not chosen by the couple. From the encyclical:

It [sexual love] does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile.

It is an unfortunate fact, however, that many Catholics do contracept.

This discussion brings up a question for me. Why did the LDS church change its stance on contraception? Catholics and Mormons used to be united in having big families

Edited September 22, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

Ensoulment does not occur until birth in LDS teachings.

Uhhhhhhhh.......nope. The closest thing to a statement on when the Spirit enters the body was given by Brigham Young and his statement is ambiguous as to when it happens.

Note that even in the exceptions the Church allows for the counsel is to consult with Priesthood leaders and spend time in prayer before making a decision.

[TAO]

Here's an article that gives a good idea of the church's opinion:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b4b8db98e2b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

[DavidB]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church. From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

From the Catholic perspective, there is no permissibility in these areas. This comes from our belief that life, the creation of the soul, begins at the moment of conception. It certainly would be a difficult burden, a difficult cross, for a women to bear the child of her rapist, but it is hard to see why the child's life should be terminated in that case. The same applies for incest. Perhaps in the case of incest the idea as well is that the child runs a chance of being malformed, but this line of thinking seems to open up the path for aborting, say, a fetus with Down's Syndrome. In the case of the health of the mother, is the self-defense exemption? We can kill without sin in self-defense. However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Why the three reasons which under the appropriate guidance are justified...because like the Catholics we believe in God and we believe that God has His reasons, anything more than that is mere speculation on the part of the person trying to put words in Gods or the Prophets mouth.

[DavidB]

I would just like to stress the point that no one here can speak for the Church beyond the bounds of what the Church has published.

Under the proper circumstances an abortion may be permissible, why those three situations....no one here has the authority to answer for the Church.

We all can only offer our opinions, of which are not binding on the Church to any degree.

[Nathair/|\]

Ensoulment does not occur until birth in LDS teachings.

CFR I've always been taught that we don't know when it happens.

[ERayR]

Can't this same logic be applied to young teen-age pregnancies as well? I would say the stronger argument would be one that focuses on the fact that the girl did not choose, not that it will be hard on her, otherwise we could open up abortion to all teen pregnancies.

The difference is that one has a choice the other doesn't. One has the obligation to face the consequence of their choice. The other had no choice.

It is indeed a terrible cross to bear. We should pray for those women who have the courage to honor the life of the child conceived in rape. It certainly requires the grace of God.

It certainly does and I think special blessings are in store for them. However, I think there is no shame nor guilt attached for those who can not do that.

[mfbukowski]

It is allowed because of agency (the woman did not have a choice in becoming pregnant in the case of incest and rape) as well as that it would be a hardship on the woman's family as well as the child if it survived if they lost their mother. Because we believe that all spirits will have the chance to be born into physical vessels, abortion does not deprive them of that chance. Abortion for convenience is a sin because it is a misuse of the creative power, not because it eternally harms the spirit of the potential child or robs it of a chance at life.

Where women are emotionally and physically capable of carrying the child, they are supported wholeheartedly if they chose to do so in the case of rape. Incest usually involves minors who are less emotionally mature and thus under more danger of being even more traumatized by pregnancy as well as the incest.

I endorse this view as well. Usually though Calmoriah and I are at each other's throats.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR I've always been taught that we don't know when it happens.

We have no doctrine as to when that occurs. Some say at conception, some say at implantation, some from first detected movement, some say at viability, some say just before live birth, some say with first breath. The scriptures are ambiguous, and contradictory.

[blackstrap]

We have no doctrine as to when that occurs. Some say at conception, some say at implantation, some from first detected movement, some say at viability, some say just before live birth, some say with first breath. The scriptures are ambiguous, and contradictory.

It is quite possibly because any of those times might be used. You know how some people are. Some gotta be there at the starting gate,others procrastinate until the last minute, some have alot of unfinished business to take care of first, some want to be in the'right lane ' way before they get to the tolllbooth.

[bu11fr0g]

There are a bunch of pieces that go along with the first breath being ensoulment including murder vs abortion, the unpardonability of murder vs pardonability and the chance to be baptised if you had or performed an abortion and temple work sealings.

Part of this is based on Kesis appearing to a prophet in the BoM the day before His birth.

There are multiple conference talks. Still, like much of lds doctrine it is not locked in and is squishy.

Still, it is a distinctively different approach than the Catholic Church where life begins at conception.

This is part of the reason that Romney as a stake president could legitimately evolve on his feelings re abortion within the church and without evoking criticism for either stance from the church.

[bu11fr0g]

Jesus not Kesis sorry for typo.