Permissibility Of Abortion

[Ran]

I will just ignore those here who are unreasonable I guess because I want to take this up with you.

I am not seeing the quandary- would you please explain it further?

At the risk of imprecision, I'll think out loud:

"The law forbidding [the direct killing of an innocent human being] "is universally valid", that is, "it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church).

LDS policy admits of exceptions to procured abortion, which suggests that the law forbidding the direct killing of an innocent human being is not universally valid.

Both positions cannot be correct.

Perhaps this law is not universally valid, in which case the Catholic Church is wrong and my intellect (assisted by Catholic teaching) is severely malformed.

Perhaps this law is universally valid, in which case the claim for the divine origin of the LDS Church is subject to doubt, for how can the true Church authoritatively teach error?

Or perhaps yet another: it remains universally valid, but God can freely dispense from this precept, making it known through revelation. If that's the case, LDS claims are left unharmed, and perhaps too, with qualification, the Catholic claim (I'm not certain. I'll have to do more reading about this; I recall that there was a disputation* about whether God could dispense from such moral absolutes). *re: Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, I think.

I am not seeing what affect the Catholic policy has on the LDS policy- and why what the Pope says creates a problem for you as you said here:

Quote

I therefore unconsciously expect to intellectually resolve the tension in what appears to be an inconsistency in LDS policy.

If you are Catholic I would expect that LDS policy would be irrelevant to giving you personal conflict, as I would expect that Catholic policy would be irrelevant to giving you conflict if you were LDS

I want to tread very gently here. At the very least, for the sake of inter-religious dialogue, I want to truly understand the LDS position, learn and engage the best arguments in its favor and avoid misrepresenting it. At a more personal level, LDS missionaries and friends testify to me about the truthfulness of the LDS church. As it stands to me right now, the policy on exceptions appear erroneous, so it remains an intellectual obstacle, weakening in my mind, the strength of LDS claims for the LDS Church's divine institution. Thanks to the contributors to this thread, I have been learning about additional considerations, like the role of divine agency, which could help to resolve that obstacle.

Anyways, I apologize if I'm incoherent right now ... need ... sleep ...

[Vance]

Perhaps this law is not universally valid, in which case the Catholic Church is wrong and my intellect (assisted by Catholic teaching) is severely malformed.

Perhaps.

Moses, the giver of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" also commanded the slaughter of all males (including babies) of the Midianites with this, (Num 31:17) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, . . ."

Just saying.

Edited to add,

And he led them to kill all of the Amorites as described in Deut 2:34

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: "

Edited to add more,

And he led them to kill all of the people of Bashan as described in Deut 3,

2 And the Lord said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.

3 So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.

Edited to add more,

Deut 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

Edited September 25, 2012 by Vance

[blueadept]

"The law forbidding [the direct killing of an innocent human being] "is universally valid", that is, "it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church).

LDS policy admits of exceptions to procured abortion, which suggests that the law forbidding the direct killing of an innocent human being is not universally valid.

Both positions cannot be correct.

In better understanding the LDS position, one would have to understand the role of personal revelation plays for them versus the way we understand revelation as given in Deus Verbum from Vatican II. For LDS, the couple can receive the necessary personal revelation as they are assisted by their bishop. In going through this process, the decision to abort is extremely rare while leaving the possibility open for the need of an abortion through personal revelation.

With our viewpoint of personal revelation as given by Deus Verbum, our Catholic minds should have an incredibly difficult time with the LDS approach.

Perhaps this law is not universally valid, in which case the Catholic Church is wrong and my intellect (assisted by Catholic teaching) is severely malformed.

My impression is that your Catholic conscience is well-formed but that doesn't mean you're ready to handle the LDS twist (understanding) which can take a lifetime for some stubborn Catholics to gain an understanding IMHO.

Edited September 25, 2012 by blueadept

[altersteve]

Verse 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, given before the fall. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit in order to know the fruits of this blessing. Doing so was a sin. God does not desire or cause sin.

It's a good thing the Book of Mormon and other modern revelations give some clarification on this point.

[CV75]

It's a good thing the Book of Mormon and other modern revelations give some clarification on this point.

Even with out them, the Catholic mgiht come to the right conclusions based on the Bible alone:

I believe the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is more important, and more in line with God’s will, than the commandment not to die beacuse our Savior was provided to take care of the original broken commandment, so that we are free to claim the original blessing.

In the case of abortion, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth supersedes the commandment not to kill. This is evidenced by God commanding people to be killed in order to facilitate the blessing (Deuteronomy 30: 16, “I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”).

It makes sense that the blessing and/or command to multiply and replenish the earth were not to be forced upon His children with violence (as in the case of incest and rape); this would be a gross perversion of the blessing / command. The command not to kill was not designed as a means to require such perversion upon either the mother or the innocent life conceived. The Lord’s atonement covers these problems in relation to the decision to abort: because it covers either set of broken commandments, it is His call as to how to proceed. In certain cases (as in the Garden of Eden where it was better to break the commandment about not killing/dying so that the blessing for multiplying and dominion could be claimed through subsequent obedience), abortion represents the better commandment to "break", that the greater commandment may be kept.

Where abortion in general has to do with the stewardship aspect of the command to multiply and replenish the earth (“have dominion”), in the case of the life and health of the mother, the chief steward of the pregnancy is granted a divinely-guided agency with regards to her responsibilities.

[saemo]

Where contraception is a willing refusal of that blessing and condemned as sinful, and where we are commanded to accept God's blessings (though we are free to refuse them)--being fruitful, it seems to me that multipllying and replenishing the earth is a commandment.

So what was more important, this blessing / commandment or the commandment not eat of the forbidden fruit?

The fact remains there are many many people in the world who have the fruit of this blessing. Even atheists have children.

But even if you view it as a commandment, it wasn't required that Adam and Eve defy a commandment of God. God created them as He meant them to be, in His presence. Their children, including us, would have been born in the same condition if not for the Fall.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

At the risk of imprecision, I'll think out loud:

"The law forbidding [the direct killing of an innocent human being] "is universally valid", that is, "it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church).

LDS policy admits of exceptions to procured abortion, which suggests that the law forbidding the direct killing of an innocent human being is not universally valid.

Both positions cannot be correct.

Perhaps this law is not universally valid, in which case the Catholic Church is wrong and my intellect (assisted by Catholic teaching) is severely malformed.

Perhaps this law is universally valid, in which case the claim for the divine origin of the LDS Church is subject to doubt, for how can the true Church authoritatively teach error?

Or perhaps yet another: it remains universally valid, but God can freely dispense from this precept, making it known through revelation. If that's the case, LDS claims are left unharmed, and perhaps too, with qualification, the Catholic claim (I'm not certain. I'll have to do more reading about this; I recall that there was a disputation* about whether God could dispense from such moral absolutes). *re: Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, I think.

I want to tread very gently here. At the very least, for the sake of inter-religious dialogue, I want to truly understand the LDS position, learn and engage the best arguments in its favor and avoid misrepresenting it. At a more personal level, LDS missionaries and friends testify to me about the truthfulness of the LDS church. As it stands to me right now, the policy on exceptions appear erroneous, so it remains an intellectual obstacle, weakening in my mind, the strength of LDS claims for the LDS Church's divine institution. Thanks to the contributors to this thread, I have been learning about additional considerations, like the role of divine agency, which could help to resolve that obstacle.

Anyways, I apologize if I'm incoherent right now ... need ... sleep ...

I will only speak for myself since I cannot speak for the church.

I would agree with the moral statement that "We should never kill an innocent human being" but I don't think anyone who is a civilized moral human being would disagree with that.

Even abortionists could agree with that, based on the definition of what constitutes a "human being". They might think that a embryo or fetus does not constitute a "human being" and indeed I think that is their stand. If it is not a "human being" then killing it does not constitute killing an "innocent human being".

Choices are rarely black and white and seeing it that way I think can lead us to a certain unquestioning dogmatism that is not good. On the other hand if we let it slide too far the other way, we can excuse anything. We have courts of law precisely to determine what is a "reasonable" medium.

The LDS position is more nuanced than the Catholic position, and for me I think that is a good thing. Life is harder in a world of shades of grey, because one actually has to think instead of following black and white rules blindly, but I think it is ultimately easier to mix justice with mercy and take a more balanced approach when you see shades of grey.

But again, that is just what I think personally.

[mfbukowski]

Both positions cannot be correct.

I think that you will find that in the real world, this is often not the case about anything.

[Vance]

Choices are rarely black and white and seeing it that way I think can lead us to a certain unquestioning dogmatism that is not good. On the other hand if we let it slide too far the other way, we can excuse anything. We have courts of law precisely to determine what is a "reasonable" medium.

The LDS position is more nuanced than the Catholic position, and for me I think that is a good thing. Life is harder in a world of shades of grey, because one actually has to think instead of following black and white rules blindly, but I think it is ultimately easier to mix justice with mercy and take a more balanced approach when you see shades of grey.

:clapping:

[Vance]

God created them as He meant them to be, in His presence.

Apparently, He didn't create them as good as He intended.

Their children, including us, would have been born in the same condition if not for the Fall.

You are assuming.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Vance

[saemo]

Apparently, He didn't create them as good as He intended.

Yeah, He did. They chose to sin against God. Our free will is a gift from God, that we might love Him freely. We can use our free will for evil, which is an abuse of the gift God has given us.

You are assuming.

If you step in front of a moving bus and die, is it an assumption to say that if you had stayed on the curb you would not have been hit by the bus?

[altersteve]

Yeah, He did. They chose to sin against God. Our free will is a gift from God, that we might love Him freely. We can use our free will for evil, which is an abuse of the gift God has given us.

So why is everyone else punished for what Adam and Eve chose to do? Why did they have to ruin it for the rest of us? Surely God knew this was going to happen, didn't He? Why did He even put the tree in the garden in the first place? I think the only way for anyone to answer that is because God wants us to grow and learn and progress through life, which requires pain and sadness: it requires free will, and we can't have free will unless we have the ability to do the wrong thing sometimes. Clearly, doing the wrong thing is important to our development as human beings and as children of God. We can't grow closer to Christ if we don't sin first.

, we fall so that we can learn how to pick ourselves back up again. Same principle applies here: God gives us opportunities to choose between right and wrong so we can learn how to be a better person tonight than we were this morning—and as we do that, God will never give up on us. The real "abuse" of this gift is to refuse to see it this way. Edited September 25, 2012 by altersteve

[saemo]

I hold no belief God desires our sins.

God is merciful, and has not left us to our state of death and sin. Look to the Cross, there is your evidence of God's mercy and justice.

God created you for life, not for death. Sin is death.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[altersteve]

Uh, yeah, I never said "God desires our sins." Clearly you didn't even read what I wrote. Maybe I worded parts of it the wrong way, but the basic idea is there: God wants us to grow and He understands that the only way for us to do so is that we know what pain feels like first. To paraphrase what He told Joseph Smith, all the pain and misery that will ever fall upon us will be for our good. He knows that we will sin sometimes, and it breaks His heart when we do, but He wants us to know that

. Surely you agree that doing the latter is how progress happens, don't you? Edited September 25, 2012 by altersteve

[CV75]

The fact remains there are many many people in the world who have the fruit of this blessing. Even atheists have children.

But people of all persuations also kill and have abortions, whether they are aware of and aligned with God's plan or not.

But even if you view it as a commandment, it wasn't required that Adam and Eve defy a commandment of God. God created them as He meant them to be, in His presence. Their children, including us, would have been born in the same condition if not for the Fall.

This is another topic altogether (and I hope we don't get derailed by it). I am refering to the two commandments as a basis for the decisions made in relation to abortion, as explained, given the fallen condition in which we find ourselves, but with a Savior overcoming death so that we are free to enjoy that first commandment.

The idea of being born into a thoroughly immortal condition, which I don't imagine is impossible but haven't seen it yet, further emphasizes the priority of multiplying and replenishing the earth over killing God's creations. In a fallen world, the first commandment takes priority despite death; in an immortal paradise it would take priority without death.

Edited September 25, 2012 by CV75

[saemo]

Uh, yeah, I never said "God desires our sins." Clearly you didn't even read what I wrote. Maybe I worded parts of it the wrong way, but the basic idea is there: God wants us to grow and He understands that the only way for us to do so is that we know what pain feels like first. To paraphrase what He told Joseph Smith, all the pain and misery that will ever fall upon us will be for our good. He knows that we will sin sometimes, and it breaks His heart when we do, but He wants us to know that

. Surely you agree that doing the latter is how progress happens, don't you?

It is a round about way of saying God desires sin. Do you think it is possible to view sin as not an option at all? We do. That is where God desires that we walk, in the light, forsaking sin.

Surely we learn from our mistakes, but all in all, I'd rather not make them.

Progression is a Mormon idea. Catholic teaching is God created us where He wants us to be, with Him. We fail. Jesus is Who reconciles us, not our sins, or ourselves, or a "progression". Follow Him. He is without sin.

[saemo]

But people of all persuations also kill and have abortions, whether they are aware of and aligned with God's plan or not.

This is another topic altogether (and I hope we don't get derailed by it). I am refering to the two commandments as a basis for the decisions made in relation to abortion, as explained, given the fallen condition in which we find ourselves, but with a Savior overcoming death so that we are free to enjoy that first commandment.

The idea of being born into a thoroughly immortal condition, which I don't imagine is impossible but haven't seen it yet, further emphasizes the priority of multiplying and replenishing the earth over killing God's creations. In a fallen world, the first commandment takes priority despite death; in an immortal paradise it would take priority without death.

I don't agree first that God created a scenario where sin was required, and second, that sin is required to "progress". You have to understand, those two notions appear, to me, as not God speaking but man. Excuse making even for the act of sin.

Catholic morality is also clear, a good end does not justify evil means. In other words, an evil act is not made good by a good intent. Evil is objectively evil.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, He did. They chose to sin against God. Our free will is a gift from God, that we might love Him freely. We can use our free will for evil, which is an abuse of the gift God has given us.

You know I just realized that the whole Catholic view of the fall begs the question. Supposedly the propensity to sin came as a result of the fall, but the whole fact that they sinned in the first place shows they already had the propensity to do so.

It's a circular argument. Here they are in paradise- Eden- and they decide to sin? Why would anyone do that- in paradise with God in effect watching them? What was their motivation to follow Satan?

It makes no sense. In effect they had "original sin" and would have had to already be "fallen" before the fall even happened!

[ERayR]

So why is everyone else punished for what Adam and Eve chose to do? Why did they have to ruin it for the rest of us? Surely God knew this was going to happen, didn't He? Why did He even put the tree in the garden in the first place? I think the only way for anyone to answer that is because God wants us to grow and learn and progress through life, which requires pain and sadness: it requires free will, and we can't have free will unless we have the ability to do the wrong thing sometimes. Clearly, doing the wrong thing is important to our development as human beings and as children of God. We can't grow closer to Christ if we don't sin first.

, we fall so that we can learn how to pick ourselves back up again. Same principle applies here: God gives us opportunities to choose between right and wrong so we can learn how to be a better person tonight than we were this morning—and as we do that, God will never give up on us. The real "abuse" of this gift is to refuse to see it this way.

I can agree to all but bolded portion. It is not necessary to sin to grow closer to Christ. What is needed to grow closer the Christ is to learn how to receive and listen to personal revelation.

[Calm]

I think that if you actually look at what I said and what your church has said, there is no conflict.

Except in the case of rape or incest, though not in the case of medical treatment for the mother IF there is no intentional abortion of the fetus (the aim of the operation is to cause the death of the fetus as opposed to the death being an unintended though unavoidable save through a miraculous intervention of the Lord consequence of a procedure).

LDS would allow a fetus to be abort before it was dead or removed in a procedure for the sole purpose of removing the fetus prior to medical treatment that would unless for a miracle result in the fetus' death. As far as I understand, Catholics would not allow the fetus to be removed even if it was better for the health of the mother until the fetus was actually killed by a treatment such as chemotherapy and would only allow a living fetus to be removed as part of a hysterectomy that just 'happened' to include a living fetus.

[Calm]

I think your understanding is correct.

We do not disagree. I am talking about where it is a foregone conclusion that the choice is between a dead baby and a living mother.

My only point is that whatever you call it, you end up with a dead baby and a living mother. Regardless of how you try to rationalize it, it is a tragic decision to have to make, but the outcome is the same. It's a horrible horrible decision to face, I am sure.

I think it is seen as allowing the hand of God to act if he so chooses in the case of procedures though how this could work with something like a hysterectomy that removed a fetus along with a uterus, that reasoning doesn't work.

[Hannah Rebekah]

In regards to contraception...I feel Mormons should be closer to the Catholic Church's view on this subject than we are.

I don't feel the need to counsel the leadership when we all have been given the directive to be faithful servants. My only wish is that LDS women would be educated better about contraception. The reason the Catholic Church is against them is because most of the them are abortive methods, the pill, the IUD, etc. The egg is fertilized in the Fallopian tubes and it take 5 to 7 days to travel down to the uterus. The abortive contraception make the environment in the uterus such that the egg does not attach and is thus flushed out with the monthly period.

As a young mother I got pregnant with an IUD in with my third pregnancy and had to have it taken out so it wouldn't be adsorbed into the baby. That procedure could also cause a miscarriage. It did not in my case and I delivered a healthy baby girl. I went back after this pregnancy to have another IUD put in. This time I read the literature they gave me to take home and learned how it worked. I was horrified because to me conception is the moment of life. I had it taken out as soon as I could

I was naive and not educated enough about these types of abortive contraceptives. I thought the pill or the IUD kept one from getting pregnant in the first place, not deposing of it after the fact. I've tried to teach my daughter and daughter-in-law about this. My daughter asked a nurse who poo pooed what I had told her. My daughter-in-law didn't even want to hear it. Interesting the lack of understanding or the attitudes.

I've struggled with knowing that I could have been the cause where I might not have had my third child, a beautiful baby girl. We lost her at eighteen in a car wreck. I don't know what my life would have been like without her beautiful smile and all because it seemed to me better to space my children. The reason for using the IUD in the first place is because my first two were 13 months apart. When this third child was born I had three children under three years. Sure it was hard but it was worth it and I'm glad Heavenly Father felt to bless me in spite of myself.

To me it's a cautionary tale.

In 1831 the Lord said this to his Church:

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

"But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned." (D&C 58:26-29.)

I just wanted to add that I checked into the Catholic's method for birth control...not the rhythm method but the basil body temperature method (can't remember what it was called). I learned so much about my body and conception. This method can be used to get pregnant as well. I had three more children, the fourth and fifth were 2 1/2 years apart and fifth and sixth 3 1/2 years apart using this natural method. It worked so much better and was easier on the conscience.

[Stargazer]

He needs a starship; why wouldn't he also need a tape recorder?

Well, just be careful when asking Him for ID.

[zerinus]

I understand how you can come to this conclusion. I'll only say, if/when you start measuring the value of human life by the abilities or maturity level of that life, you have opened a door to infanticide. As every argument you make can be given as a "reason" for killing a newborn as well as the unborn.

A human life that is still forming is existing exactly as God meant it to be. It is not our judgement to say it is a life with lesser value.

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Catholic view.

I agree that voluntary abortion for convenience or other social reasons is a grave sin. But I think that the Catholics take it to the extreme when they put it on a par with murdering a human being that has already come into the world. Under no penal code, including the biblical one, are they deemed to be equivalent. I know of no country in the world where capital punishment is (or has been) mandated for murder, that the two are made equivalent. The Bible doesn't do it, the Jews never did it, the Muslims do't do it, in European countries (where murder carried the death penalty until quite recently) it was never done, and I don't know of any country or civilization in the past or present, religious or irreligious, where the two have been deemed equivalent. A distinction has been made between a human being that has actually been born (come into the world), and one who has not been.

[Stargazer]

You know I just realized that the whole Catholic view of the fall begs the question. Supposedly the propensity to sin came as a result of the fall, but the whole fact that they sinned in the first place shows they already had the propensity to do so.

It's a circular argument. Here they are in paradise- Eden- and they decide to sin? Why would anyone do that- in paradise with God in effect watching them? What was their motivation to follow Satan?

It makes no sense. In effect they had "original sin" and would have had to already be "fallen" before the fall even happened!

I've been following this discussion with interest, but with nothing much of a substantive nature to contribute. I still don't have much to say, but I did have one semi-cogent thing to toss out there. And that is you, mbufkowski.

I noticed that somewhere along about 50 or 70 posts ago you said that with one last post you would be GONE. In fact, you renewed this promise several times. Not that I wish you to exit, but may I play Inigo to your Vizini? That word? I don't think it means what you think it means!