Abortion - Why Doesn'T The Church Make A Stronger Stance On It?

[ERayR]

Even in cases of rape/incest, those poor girls need to understand the emotional trauma that having an abortion might bring - that having an abortion is not a "cure all" and that it might not make them feel any better, it might actually make them feel worse. They need to understand that the child is theirs too - with their eyes, their hair, their DNA - that two wrongs do not always make a right, that it could make a bad situation even worse.

I have a cousin who was the result of rape - going through the pregnancy, and seeing this beautiful child, can be a big part of the healing process for people going through this kind of thing. Having an abortion can make a bad situation worse, because now not only does the girl have to come to terms with a rape, she also has to come to terms with killing her own child. So yes, they need to know.

My issue is not with the church's stance - but with the lack of programs / support / dialog / action for it. It's one thing to say something... it's quite another to act on what you say, to educate, support, raise awareness, talk about it so that girls facing it aren't afraid to come forward, and are not afraid to talk and seek help.

What you are talking about is the Bishops job. Girls and boys facing situations where these choices might be made are counseled by their bishop who has access to a number of professional services to assist. You know like professional counselors and adoption services.

[Robert F. Smith]

Even in cases of rape/incest, those poor girls need to understand the emotional trauma that having an abortion might bring - that having an abortion is not a "cure all" and that it might not make them feel any better, it might actually make them feel worse. They need to understand that the child is theirs too - with their eyes, their hair, their DNA - that two wrongs do not always make a right, that it could make a bad situation even worse.

One reason why the incest taboo should be taken seriously is that it can result in dangerous genetic defects, quite aside from the trauma to the young girl subjected to it -- which is usually by rape. Forcible rape is exceptionally traumatic and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put an additional guilt trip on a girl or woman who has been victimized in this manner.

The Roman Catholic dogma is that life begins at conception and that, therefore, it is murder to have an abortion. Any abortion for any reason. There is no biblical support for such a doctrine. In fact, it is clear from Genesis 2:7 (= Abraham 5:7) that life begins when a newborn takes its first breath and becomes "a living soul" (Hebrew nefesh chayah). In like manner, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that such a determination is to be based on the likelihood that a premature delivery will be viable (based on date of delivery and gram weight of the preemie).

The Roman Catholic Church has created an additional problem in this matter which actually leads to a greater number of possible abortions and HIV infections within its own faith community. This comes from the declaration that one must not use contraceptives (including condoms). One would have thought that the RC Church would weigh the lesser or greater evils and have adjusted the directives accordingly -- abortion presumably being the greater evil, and use of contraception being the lesser evil -- but this has not been done.

I have a cousin who was the result of rape - going through the pregnancy, and seeing this beautiful child, can be a big part of the healing process for people going through this kind of thing. Having an abortion can make a bad situation worse, because now not only does the girl have to come to terms with a rape, she also has to come to terms with killing her own child. So yes, they need to know.

Since Mormons do not consider abortion murder, your suggestion here is hollow. For a Mormon woman or girl, the much greater trauma would come from having to go through a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and then having to be reminded of the trauma forever after.

My issue is not with the church's stance - but with the lack of programs / support / dialog / action for it. It's one thing to say something... it's quite another to act on what you say, to educate, support, raise awareness, talk about it so that girls facing it aren't afraid to come forward, and are not afraid to talk and seek help.

It is much easier for Mormon girls and women to seek help since they aren't stigmatized or guilt ridden by a false charge of murder. In short, the LDS Church does not share the concerns of Roman Catholicism on this issue. The doctrines are quite different.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

TSS, we allow members to make up their minds on aborting a child but not to marry the same sex? Something is askewed here.

There are a very limited set of circumstances where the church feels that abortion is not a sin. There are no revealed scenarios where homosexual acts would not be a sin.

I was intimately involved in a case many years ago where a female member of the church who had lupus became pregnant. Her doctor advised her against trying to carry the baby to term, i.e. he advised an abortion because of serious concerns for her life.

The sister consulted church authorities at all levels of the church and received assurances from the first presidency that an abortion would not be a sin in her case. However, the sister loved children more than herself and could not bear to abort the child. She prayed fervently to her Heavenly Father and begged Him to take the decision from her. In addition she had received a blessing. he result was that she became unpregnant.

I don't really know whetherthat is of any significance to this thread.

Glenn

Edited March 30, 2013 by Glenn101

[changed]

Incorrect. No brain, no intelligence, at least in this world.

I disagree - plants have a spirit, but they do not have a brain.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 3:5)

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually. - the spirits of the plants seemed to exist within the premortal realm, just as we did.

So no, a brain does not equate to a spirit. A spirit is much more than that. Life is what equates to spirit - what is alive has a spirit. Many living things do not have brains as we know them, but have a spirit.

I've never doubted that the fetus is alive. What we are debating is whether that life must by law take always priority over that of the woman's.

It is only a trap when we make absolutist claims about the rights of the fetus over the rights of the mother.

I'm not advocating absolutist positions on it, I'm only advocating an increased awareness of the issues involved, and more programs / resources for women around reproductive issues.

Edited March 30, 2013 by changed

[cinepro]

Are LDS members not as pro-life as the Catholics?

Yes.

Is marriage equality more important than protecting the lives of innocent children?

I suspect if the Supreme Court rules that SSM is a constitutional right (as it did with abortion in the early 1970s), we'll see a similar shift in Church emphasis on it. We're still against abortion, but we fight it in our teaching and doctrine, not in the court room or ballot box.

Are there any official statements about when life begins?

No. There is the interesting situation where the spirit of Christ speaks to Nephi (son of Helaman) the night before he (Christ) is to be born. Since his body (Christ's) was still in Mary on the other side of the world, it would indicate that the spirit is not permanently attached to the body even the day before birth.

Though Elder McConkie theorized that this wasn't actually Christ speaking, but instead an angel who was given permission to pretend he was Jesus. YMMV.

Should we be pushing the LDS church to get more into the pro-life battle than it currently is?

How so? Picketing? Legislation? What more would you like to see?

[Wanderer7]

I personally see abortion as murder and every bit as serious as any other kind of killing. I wish the church was more active about it. However, I'm not going to write a letter or start an online picketing movement to convince President Monson that I'm right. Not that any member of the church would do that .

[3DOP]

Robert F. Smith

One reason why the incest taboo should be taken seriously is that it can result in dangerous genetic defects, quite aside from the trauma to the young girl subjected to it -- which is usually by rape. Forcible rape is exceptionally traumatic and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put an additional guilt trip on a girl or woman who has been victimized in this manner.

3DOP

If a girl is Catholic or not, a guilt trip for being raped isn't warranted at all. That is the first issue that needs corrected. Secondly, a guilt trip for having the baby must be discouraged. It seems tragic to abort the child merely because an uninformed conscience experiences false guilt. This can be done with great delicacy and tenderness, but the mother's confusion about guilt and blame can be corrected in better ways than abortion. That is the second issue that needs corrected. Finally, if a girl believes that the life in her womb is an innocent human being, it would be most reasonable to feel guilty for having it killed.

It seems unjust to imply that those of us who are against aborting the offspring of a rapist are doing so because we want to add to "the guilt" of the rape victim. The problem is that if it is okay to abort a child that comes from rape, why is it not okay to abort any child? If the child isn't even a living soul, why be against abortion at all? It seems like an emotionally driven policy and inconsistent theology to justify abortion in cases of rape but not justified at all other times. I don't know how we can tell husbands and wives that they can't abort but allow it to certain others.

Robert F. Smith

The Roman Catholic dogma is that life begins at conception and that, therefore, it is murder to have an abortion. Any abortion for any reason. There is no biblical support for such a doctrine. In fact, it is clear from Genesis 2:7 (= Abraham 5:7) that life begins when a newborn takes its first breath and becomes "a living soul" (Hebrew nefesh chayah). In like manner, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that such a determination is to be based on the likelihood that a premature delivery will be viable (based on date of delivery and gram weight of the preemie).

3DOP

You are correct about how we don't recognize Adam as the prototype for how we know when a baby becomes a human soul. Adam was never a baby. Why would we look at someone who was never a baby to determine when the human life of a baby begins? We would have to wonder why St. John the Baptist "leaped for joy" in Elizabeth's womb at the voice of the Mother of God, if he/it wasn't even human life yet?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

---Luke 1:43, 44

Seeing why we aren't comfortable with the idea that the experience of Adam sheds light on this question, our reasoning is not completely based on the Bible. As you probably know, Sacred Tradition is equally authoritative with Scripture and the Church has always opposed abortion. There have been different schools of thought regarding when human life begins. St. Thos. Aquinas lived at a time when it was thought that the "quickening", or first movements felt in the womb, indicated that life had begun. For this reason he did not endorse, although he did not oppose, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Subsequent medical discoveries do not shed more light on when life begins.

The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”

http://www.lifenews....-at-conception/

This would be speculation, but I think a case might be made that our beliefs about life at conception are a result of our beliefs about abortion, as opposed to the other way around.

Robert F. Smith

The Roman Catholic Church has created an additional problem in this matter which actually leads to a greater number of possible abortions and HIV infections within its own faith community. This comes from the declaration that one must not use contraceptives (including condoms). One would have thought that the RC Church would weigh the lesser or greater evils and have adjusted the directives accordingly -- abortion presumably being the greater evil, and use of contraception being the lesser evil -- but this has not been done.

3DOP

No worries about our "faith community". Do you actually think there are people who pay attention to the teaching of the Church when it comes to contraception, but who sleep around all the time catching diseases and committing abortions? The "additional problem" of contraception is eliminated for the faithful husbands and wives to whom it is directed. It seems highly doubtful that the promiscuous and the rapists in our faith community are obeying Church law on contraception.

In a recent exchange between us I shared some of my misgivings regarding Vatican II. But much or even most of Vatican II is compatible with Tradition. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children and in Gaudium et Spes, a most important point is made regarding why the Catholic Church will not bend to the norms of the world:

Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited to the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny.

---GS 51:4, Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2371

In five million years, faithful Catholics will not be sorry that they drove a used car because they had too many children on earth. Properly understood, this teaching is intended to make us think of filling heaven as well as earth. I was not Catholic during the years we could have children. Maybe because of that, I understand the anxieties that young couples feel. I understand wanting to see your wife stay small and keeping the house and car small too. But that is a narrow and spiritually unhealthy focus. It is taking our eyes away from the eternal. We can easily begin by thinking we can't afford to support another child, and end up realizing we can't live "the way we want" with another child.

A more concrete problem is that when babies are not seen as probable at the start, it encourages immature young people to get married. Catholics who ponder Church teaching on this subject realize that the man has to be prepared to support a family, by himself, before they marry. If the teaching were widely accepted, it wouldn't even make the population explosion that some seem concerned about. The doctrine, widely followed would tend to insure that only good, self-sacrificing young men would be willing to be a husband and father.

Robert F. Smith

Since Mormons do not consider abortion murder, your suggestion here is hollow. For a Mormon woman or girl, the much greater trauma would come from having to go through a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and then having to be reminded of the trauma forever after.

3DOP

I am not taking issue with you about the LDS position. I am just trying to show that maybe you haven't considered the Catholic position in its totality.

I have seen evidence which suggests that even non-religious women tend to have guilt about it. A cure doesn't always come from repetitious dogma about how an unwanted fetus isn't human. I would propose that most guilt is innate to the way a mother is made and the attachment felt to the potential life inside, human or not, even if it was originally uninvited. Obviously, the period following the trauma of being raped is emotionally charged. But decisions have to be made. After serious reasoning, I don't know why any woman, Mormon or not, should feel even worse for trauma for perceiving the true distinction between the baby and the rapist and acting accordingly, carrying the baby.

Robert F. Smith

It is much easier for Mormon girls and women to seek help since they aren't stigmatized or guilt ridden by a false charge of murder. In short, the LDS Church does not share the concerns of Roman Catholicism on this issue. The doctrines are quite different.

3DOP

It would certainly seem to be much easier for raped Mormon girls to abort without feeling as bad about it. But I tend to think nature trumps dogma on this one, especially when a tender heart is involved. Dogma doesn't seem to get rid of all the guilt. Maybe daughter senses that Mom and Dad are wondering if they can be good grandparents to such a child and the rape victim assents for such a reason? I know I would have those feelings as a parent and my outrage would be hard to hide. It is of course a terrible thing. But a quick decision, based on emotional considerations, might bring scars that never heal. "And all things work together for good to them that love God." The child might be an LDS Apostle or a Catholic bishop. How could a mother who aborts never wonder?

Of course, I do not concede that you have demonstrated that we may safely assume that unborn babies may be killed until they take their first breath. Assuredly, Catholics would implore any pregnant woman considering abortion to ask herself what she believes about the life within her. Believing what we do, we would spare her the temporal guilt and eternal consequences that might result from this action.

In a way, it would be great if we were wrong. It doesn't give me any joy to consider the moral holocaust that we are experiencing if our teaching is correct. The website that I linked includes teachings of the Church on this through the centuries citing the Fathers. I think John the Baptist is more important than Adam in determining when a baby might be human. But in conjunction with the Tradition of the Church, it seems clear that the teaching on abortion has been consistently maintained from Apostolic times and not been questioned by non-Catholic Christians until these last days.

Thanks for your consideration Robert. I hope you can see that our beliefs about both contraception and abortion, stem from values with which you might find more sympathy, even though you are forced to disagree because of the LDS understanding of the beginnings of human life.

A Happy Easter to you and all! One more day to go!!!!!!

3DOP

Edited March 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[changed]

No. There is the interesting situation where the spirit of Christ speaks to Nephi (son of Helaman) the night before he (Christ) is to be born. Since his body (Christ's) was still in Mary on the other side of the world, it would indicate that the spirit is not permanently attached to the body even the day before birth.

Though Elder McConkie theorized that this wasn't actually Christ speaking, but instead an angel who was given permission to pretend he was Jesus. YMMV.

Interesting example - then there's this example too:

44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

(New Testament | Luke 1:41)

or this:

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 1:5)

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I know, it's a grey area, and no one can define the exact second that life begins, although I think it's prudent to err on the side of caution than to leave it to chance.

How so? Picketing? Legislation? What more would you like to see?

A lot of the stuff in that link is 20-30 years old, it seems like people were talking about it in the 70's / 80's, but now they aren't talking about it as much? I would like to see the church get involved in the issue, I think elective abortions should be illegal, that tax payers should not have to support elective abortions, (I underline "elective" because I agree that they are needed in rare extreme cases). I think a raised awareness of it, and talking about it more, would be good. I just see abortion issues as being more of a threat than things like homosexual issues, and wonder why the emphasis seems to be where it is now.

Edited March 30, 2013 by changed

[CV75]

It is a harder, more confusing issue, which I think means it should be talked about more. Women need to understand what the alternatives are, what the emotional repercussions are, that they are not alone. When people are afraid to talk about something, that's when problems arise, and everyone gets hurt. We should be a place that is open to talking about all the hard issues.

For those who find themselves in difficulty and confusion over abortion, the Lord, the Church and the saints have so much to offer. When members do our part, no one need go through any kind of dilemma alone. If you know a woman that needs to understand what you think she does, or is afraid to talk about what you think she should, you can do your part as guided by the Spirit, and gather the addtional Church resources from there. I don't think you would have trouble finding a helping hand.

Because the general authorities handle general matters--those comon to all members, such as the exercise of the saving keys--and individual cases of abortion require quite specific attention, the Lord has set up a network of saints within one's own sphere of influence to both help and be helped.

[Brenda]

We have always been encouraged to get involved in civic and moral causes.

I have always been pro-life, except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or mother's life at risk. But recently came to a dilemma in my own thinking .....

Should it be illegal except in those times as I named above? If so, then how do you prove it? How do you prove rape or even incest? I don't think you can in all cases. So how is such a law enforced? Can it be? Therefore, can there be a law against abortion with exceptions? Abortion needs to be legal in some cases.

A woman in my family, who's life was at extreme risk due to severely elevated blood pressure, had to have her pregnancy terminated at only 6 months gestation .... and this was over 30 years ago. Fortunately the baby lived and is now a mother herself. Had that baby died, it would have been abortion. Yet it had to happen, as the mother had four other young children to raise.

So sometimes abortion is necessary. But how do you differentiate? Do we need to keep it legal as it is now, and campaign its rare use? I mean to do what we can to teach that it is someone's life we're dealing with, and that someone has a right to live if at all possible.

I don't know. Keep it legal and keep it rare, does make sense. But the problem is that you give an inch and people take a mile, and we have babies being killed by the thousands, and in many cases simply as a form of birth control.

[changed]

I think it would be possible to create a law making elective abortions illegal. Heath issues could simply be verified by a competent doctor, and in the case of rape/incest, simply have the women fill out a police report about the incident, name the father if his name is known, but they should be required to fill out a police report. I would not require anyone to go to court to prove this or that - I would hold doctors accountable, perhaps require two independent doctors to both verify and sign off on the health condition, and revoke the doctors licenses of anyone who lies about health conditions. Sure, some women might lie about it, and some elective abortions would still be performed, but that would be better than what we currently have, and the law itself would make a clear statement to society at large.

[Whiskeypete]

Whatever the church is doing, they're obviously doing something right. Utah always ranks among the lowest in abortion rates in the country.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree, let's teach the correct principles, let's talk about it more, let's make videos about it, let's educate people about it - let's talk about as much, if not more, than we talk about homosexuality.

I have seen many videos by Family and Children Services of the Church on this topic and many others in leadership meetings. I served as a HPGL for 4 years and in the Bishopric for 3...it was not the only topic, but many classes on the topic. Has something changed...homosexuality has just been the hobby topic as of late to the degree that it is, more so who want let it rest for 10 mins on Mormon websites, as if we are the only ones who disagree with gay marriage and accused night and day of hate. The Church is not into blocking abortion clinics because it is not legal.

[blackstrap]

changed, you have scriptural authority in the D&C to be actively engaged in a good cause without being commanded. This topic of abortion is obviously something you are passionate about so proceed. That said, the church has a nuanced approach to abortion not a black and white one. As you are aware,about 5 % of abortions take place because of rape/incest. About 75 % take place because of some kind of inconvenience. The rest deal with mother's health issues etc. The Church takes a very firm stand on the 75% type.

[Bikeemikey]

What about the babies involved... do they get to make up their own minds? What about the agency of the child?

I agree. Abortion lies along the lines of the unpardonable sin, while homosexuality is very very far from that line. One of the main arguments against gay marriage is the welfare of the children - and if we are so concerned about the welfare of children, it seems abortion would be a much, much bigger issue - we should be hearing about it more, we should be involved with fighting against it more.

Also, when you consider that about 40% of women have abortions (and only about 2-3% struggle with homosexuality) it would seem to be a much larger problem, affecting many more of the members of the church.

I agree with the church's stance on this, but here's the thing - somewhere around 93% of all abortions are not performed for any of those reasons.

I think it's important to consider - not the rare outlier cases - but the more common reasons women are having them.

Is there anyone out there who would be interested in starting up a grassroots pro-life movement within the church? We could send letters to MormonMessages to make a few vids about it, we could petition someone to put together an official webpage about it (as they have for gay Mormons), and otherwise bring it into the limelight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"women who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die of suicide compared to women who delivered their babies." - link

Post Abortion Stress Syndrome...

Our girls are not getting the info they need... if we are concerned with "women's health", let's look at what this horrific procedure actually does to women's health, and educate those around us about it.

Let's make an official church website about it (as we have for gay Mormons), let's make videos about it, let's start talking about it more.

Your statistics on percentage of US women having had an abortion are extremely poor. When the article itself describes it as an extremely crude metric you know it is probably time to not voter citing it.

That abortion happens so often is a shame.

It is the most complex moral rights issue we face because of the tension between rights holders that are effectively sharing the same identical physical space and resource and only one has can communicate.

Doesn't mean the church should be more politically invested in the public debate.

Theologically infants who die go straight to heaven right? It's not like we are stuck in the catholic theological quandary of having a child aborted in fetus consigned to the fires of hell in virtue of no baptism.

[Bikeemikey]

My issue is not with the church's stance - but with the lack of programs / support / dialog / action for it. It's one thing to say something... it's quite another to act on what you say, to educate, support, raise awareness, talk about it so that girls facing it aren't afraid to come forward, and are not afraid to talk and seek help.

The church has a solid network if trained and professional counsellors that bishops and stake presidents can refer members to, or consult with themselves when the need arises.

This information is available and needs to e drawn on based on case by case scenarios.

Your claims ring hollow that there is no framework or program to help with questions of abortion.

[Bikeemikey]

...revealed scenarios where homosexual acts....

How awkward would it be to be the prophet and receive the revelation about homosexual acts...

[Stone holm]

I believe we are only moderately pro life. We are against gratuitous abortions of convenience, but I think there is a great reluctance to put the government in the decision chair rather than the woman, her Bishop, and her physician. I think if you talk to many Mormon women they don't think this a decision that government should be making.

[3DOP]

Hi BikeyMikie,

I'd like to offer some corrections about the Catholic view of unbaptized babies. Following is your quote:

Theologically infants who die go straight to heaven right? It's not like we are stuck in the catholic theological quandary of having a child aborted in fetus consigned to the fires of hell in virtue of no baptism.

The Catholic position is not affected one way or the other by where we think an aborted child goes. Nevertheless, there are good Catholic arguments that the child goes to heaven. There are good Catholic arguments that the child goes to Limbo. There are no Catholic arguments that say the child burns in hell. I understand that the Book of Mormon opposes pedobaptism. But this was as it was practiced in the New World. They DID teach that dead unbaptized babies burn in hell. But the Catholic Church in the Old World has never taught that the pain of the senses associated with hell could be for anyone that had never committed actual sin. Many Mormons make the understandable, but mistaken assumption that Old World infant baptism is in agreement with the New World errors.

St. Augustine, for part of his life apparently taught that unbaptized babies did experience pain in hell that was so mild that the saying applied to Judas, that it would have been better not to have been born, could not be applied to the unbaptized baby. Even this mild teaching was rejected by the Catholic Church:

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell...

---Pope Innocent III, (1198-1216), Denz. 410

This was in the context of dead babies. They are obviously incapable of any actual sin. So they miss out on something to which they aren't predisposed anyway. Come to think of it, I doubt if a lot of grownups are so predisposed. It isn't often that I bump into non-Catholics who seem enthused with "the vision of God" anyway. Do Mormons think the celestial kingdom is principally about contemplating God for eternity? I don't think so. To be "deprived" shouldn't even seem like a punishment to those people who would think that such an activity would be boring. It seems to me like most grownups I know would say "Thanks but no thanks." I don't know why babies would be any different. Maybe this whole heaven idea isn't for everybody. I don't think we should assume that even people in hell would prefer heaven. In any case, it certainly seems rash to assume that people (mostly dead babies) who aren't even burning in hell would opt for the Catholic view of heaven forever.

3DOP

Edited March 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stargazer]

TSS, we allow members to make up their minds on aborting a child but not to marry the same sex? Something is askewed here.

You are arguing apples and oranges here. What on earth does abortion have to do with homosexuality?

We allow members to make up their minds about who to vote for in an election, but forbids them from drinking Jack Daniels.

[changed]

The church has a solid network if trained and professional counsellors that bishops and stake presidents can refer members to, or consult with themselves when the need arises.

I know it does, but that is counting on women/girls actually having the guts to walk into the bishop's office and ask - which in a society were there is so much pressure to be good and do good - I think there are many who would be too scared to seek out this council. Changing it from info you get in a PPI, to info you hear about and talk about in the open, would make it easier for everyone to get used to talking about it, and less intimidated to broach the subject. You could say the same thing for homosexuals, or porn addicts, or any number of issues that someone would be embarrassed about and feel uncomfortable about talking with the bishop about - for the same reason that homosexuality, and pornography issues are discussed openly, (instead of just behind closed doors) I think we need to come out of the closet... or at least come out of the bishop's office, with an open dialog and discussion on abortion too.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith

One reason why the incest taboo should be taken seriously is that it can result in dangerous genetic defects, quite aside from the trauma to the young girl subjected to it -- which is usually by rape. Forcible rape is exceptionally traumatic and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put an additional guilt trip on a girl or woman who has been victimized in this manner.

3DOP

If a girl is Catholic or not, a guilt trip for being raped isn't warranted at all. That is the first issue that needs corrected. Secondly, a guilt trip for having the baby must be discouraged. It seems tragic to abort the child merely because an uninformed conscience experiences false guilt. This can be done with great delicacy and tenderness, but the mother's confusion about guilt and blame can be corrected in better ways than abortion. That is the second issue that needs corrected. Finally, if a girl believes that the life in her womb is an innocent human being, it would be most reasonable to feel guilty for having it killed.

It seems unjust to imply that those of us who are against aborting the offspring of a rapist are doing so because we want to add to "the guilt" of the rape victim. The problem is that if it is okay to abort a child that comes from rape, why is it not okay to abort any child? If the child isn't even a living soul, why be against abortion at all? It seems like an emotionally driven policy and inconsistent theology to justify abortion in cases of rape but not justified at all other times. I don't know how we can tell husbands and wives that they can't abort but allow it to certain others.

Robert F. Smith

The Roman Catholic dogma is that life begins at conception and that, therefore, it is murder to have an abortion. Any abortion for any reason. There is no biblical support for such a doctrine. In fact, it is clear from Genesis 2:7 (= Abraham 5:7) that life begins when a newborn takes its first breath and becomes "a living soul" (Hebrew nefesh chayah). In like manner, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that such a determination is to be based on the likelihood that a premature delivery will be viable (based on date of delivery and gram weight of the preemie).

3DOP

You are correct about how we don't recognize Adam as the prototype for how we know when a baby becomes a human soul. Adam was never a baby. Why would we look at someone who was never a baby to determine when the human life of a baby begins? We would have to wonder why St. John the Baptist "leaped for joy" in Elizabeth's womb at the voice of the Mother of God, if he/it wasn't even human life yet?

---Luke 1:43, 44

Seeing why we aren't comfortable with the idea that the experience of Adam sheds light on this question, our reasoning is not completely based on the Bible. As you probably know, Sacred Tradition is equally authoritative with Scripture and the Church has always opposed abortion. There have been different schools of thought regarding when human life begins. St. Thos. Aquinas lived at a time when it was thought that the "quickening", or first movements felt in the womb, indicated that life had begun. For this reason he did not endorse, although he did not oppose, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Subsequent medical discoveries do not shed more light on when life begins.

http://www.lifenews....-at-conception/

This would be speculation, but I think a case might be made that our beliefs about life at conception are a result of our beliefs about abortion, as opposed to the other way around.

Robert F. Smith

The Roman Catholic Church has created an additional problem in this matter which actually leads to a greater number of possible abortions and HIV infections within its own faith community. This comes from the declaration that one must not use contraceptives (including condoms). One would have thought that the RC Church would weigh the lesser or greater evils and have adjusted the directives accordingly -- abortion presumably being the greater evil, and use of contraception being the lesser evil -- but this has not been done.

3DOP

No worries about our "faith community". Do you actually think there are people who pay attention to the teaching of the Church when it comes to contraception, but who sleep around all the time catching diseases and committing abortions? The "additional problem" of contraception is eliminated for the faithful husbands and wives to whom it is directed. It seems highly doubtful that the promiscuous and the rapists in our faith community are obeying Church law on contraception.

In a recent exchange between us I shared some of my misgivings regarding Vatican II. But much or even most of Vatican II is compatible with Tradition. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children and in Gaudium et Spes, a most important point is made regarding why the Catholic Church will not bend to the norms of the world:

---GS 51:4, Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2371

In five million years, faithful Catholics will not be sorry that they drove a used car because they had too many children on earth. Properly understood, this teaching is intended to make us think of filling heaven as well as earth. I was not Catholic during the years we could have children. Maybe because of that, I understand the anxieties that young couples feel. I understand wanting to see your wife stay small and keeping the house and car small too. But that is a narrow and spiritually unhealthy focus. It is taking our eyes away from the eternal. We can easily begin by thinking we can't afford to support another child, and end up realizing we can't live "the way we want" with another child.

A more concrete problem is that when babies are not seen as probable at the start, it encourages immature young people to get married. Catholics who ponder Church teaching on this subject realize that the man has to be prepared to support a family, by himself, before they marry. If the teaching were widely accepted, it wouldn't even make the population explosion that some seem concerned about. The doctrine, widely followed would tend to insure that only good, self-sacrificing young men would be willing to be a husband and father.

Robert F. Smith

Since Mormons do not consider abortion murder, your suggestion here is hollow. For a Mormon woman or girl, the much greater trauma would come from having to go through a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and then having to be reminded of the trauma forever after.

3DOP

I am not taking issue with you about the LDS position. I am just trying to show that maybe you haven't considered the Catholic position in its totality.

I have seen evidence which suggests that even non-religious women tend to have guilt about it. A cure doesn't always come from repetitious dogma about how an unwanted fetus isn't human. I would propose that most guilt is innate to the way a mother is made and the attachment felt to the potential life inside, human or not, even if it was originally uninvited. Obviously, the period following the trauma of being raped is emotionally charged. But decisions have to be made. After serious reasoning, I don't know why any woman, Mormon or not, should feel even worse for trauma for perceiving the true distinction between the baby and the rapist and acting accordingly, carrying the baby.

Robert F. Smith

It is much easier for Mormon girls and women to seek help since they aren't stigmatized or guilt ridden by a false charge of murder. In short, the LDS Church does not share the concerns of Roman Catholicism on this issue. The doctrines are quite different.

3DOP

It would certainly seem to be much easier for raped Mormon girls to abort without feeling as bad about it. But I tend to think nature trumps dogma on this one, especially when a tender heart is involved. Dogma doesn't seem to get rid of all the guilt. Maybe daughter senses that Mom and Dad are wondering if they can be good grandparents to such a child and the rape victim assents for such a reason? I know I would have those feelings as a parent and my outrage would be hard to hide. It is of course a terrible thing. But a quick decision, based on emotional considerations, might bring scars that never heal. "And all things work together for good to them that love God." The child might be an LDS Apostle or a Catholic bishop. How could a mother who aborts never wonder?

Of course, I do not concede that you have demonstrated that we may safely assume that unborn babies may be killed until they take their first breath. Assuredly, Catholics would implore any pregnant woman considering abortion to ask herself what she believes about the life within her. Believing what we do, we would spare her the temporal guilt and eternal consequences that might result from this action.

In a way, it would be great if we were wrong. It doesn't give me any joy to consider the moral holocaust that we are experiencing if our teaching is correct. The website that I linked includes teachings of the Church on this through the centuries citing the Fathers. I think John the Baptist is more important than Adam in determining when a baby might be human. But in conjunction with the Tradition of the Church, it seems clear that the teaching on abortion has been consistently maintained from Apostolic times and not been questioned by non-Catholic Christians until these last days.

Thanks for your consideration Robert. I hope you can see that our beliefs about both contraception and abortion, stem from values with which you might find more sympathy, even though you are forced to disagree because of the LDS understanding of the beginnings of human life.

A Happy Easter to you and all! One more day to go!!!!!!

3DOP

Thank you for your good wishes. Without the Resurrection all would be lost.

I very much appreciate your taking the time to provide us with an authentic Roman Catholic point of view on these matters. In some cases, you were preaching to the choir, in others you missed the point I was making only slightly. But, no matter, would that all exchanges on these sorts of issues could be made with the same grace and civility you demonstrate.

Reminds me so much of a young Roman Catholic guy from Montreal I traveled with through the Holy Land, oh so many years ago. It was a real pleasure to see things from his point of view, and to recognize true faith and brotherhood in someone who came from a very different faith tradition. He introduced me to the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin. When he returned to Canada, he went to seminary, became a priest, and served (last I heard) in South America. A fine and noble man.

[Bikeemikey]

Hi BikeyMikie,

I'd like to offer some corrections about the Catholic view of unbaptized babies. Following is your quote:

The Catholic position is not affected one way or the other by where we think an aborted child goes. Nevertheless, there are good Catholic arguments that the child goes to heaven. There are good Catholic arguments that the child goes to Limbo. There are no Catholic arguments that say the child burns in hell. I understand that the Book of Mormon opposes pedobaptism. But this was as it was practiced in the New World. They DID teach that dead unbaptized babies burn in hell. But the Catholic Church in the Old World has never taught that the pain of the senses associated with hell could be for anyone that had never committed actual sin. Many Mormons make the understandable, but mistaken assumption that Old World infant baptism is in agreement with the New World errors.

St. Augustine, for part of his life apparently taught that unbaptized babies did experience pain in hell that was so mild that the saying applied to Judas, that it would have been better not to have been born, could not be applied to the unbaptized baby. Even this mild teaching was rejected by the Catholic Church:

---Pope Innocent III, (1198-1216), Denz. 410

This was in the context of dead babies. They are obviously incapable of any actual sin. So they miss out on something to which they aren't predisposed anyway. Come to think of it, I doubt if a lot of grownups are so predisposed. It isn't often that I bump into non-Catholics who seem enthused with "the vision of God" anyway. Do Mormons think the celestial kingdom is principally about contemplating God for eternity? I don't think so. To be "deprived" shouldn't even seem like a punishment to those people who would think that such an activity would be boring. It seems to me like most grownups I know would say "Thanks but no thanks." I don't know why babies would be any different. Maybe this whole heaven idea isn't for everybody. I don't think we should assume that even people in hell would prefer heaven. In any case, it certainly seems rash to assume that people (mostly dead babies) who aren't even burning in hell would opt for the Catholic view of heaven forever.

3DOP

Thanks for this great post. I certainly didn't intend to cast a normative pall over the catholic position on this. I think a lot of non-Catholics are not aware of the diversity of catholic theological discussion.

I don't dispute anything you have stated. The Catholic position on this is diverse.

During my religious studies undergrad we had three different catholic clergy come and present on what were referred to as the three catholic positions on the afterlife of an aborted fetus:

1) heaven like after life

2) limbo

3) hell

All three of these positions are held by both catholic members and clergy. They never provided data on the numbers subscribing to each position.

However, let's take hell off the table (assuming based on your post that the hell position is extremely uncommon). That still provides a clear argument that can leave the baby in limbo.

This is a clear theological and doctrinal impetus, based on a restricted afterlife for an aborted fetus, that adds a lot if import to the catholic pro-life movement.

Mormons do not have a theological stake in this based on the eternal implications to the fetus - in fact quite the opposite. Those prophets who have made declarations about still-births and infants suggest that they go straight to the glory of heaven. It is not unreasonable for many members to assume these states also apply to miscarriages and fetus subject to abortion.

As such Catholics have the double concern of abortion as a sin for the women (and decision maker/s) as well as having potential irreversible negative impacts on the afterlife outcome of the fetus it self.

This places the mormon conversation in a fundamentally different sphere to the Catholics.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Thanks for this great post. I certainly didn't intend to cast a normative pall over the catholic position on this. I think a lot of non-Catholics are not aware of the diversity of catholic theological discussion.

I don't dispute anything you have stated. The Catholic position on this is diverse.

During my religious studies undergrad we had three different catholic clergy come and present on what were referred to as the three catholic positions on the afterlife of an aborted fetus:

1) heaven like after life

2) limbo

3) hell

All three of these positions are held by both catholic members and clergy. They never provided data on the numbers subscribing to each position.

However, let's take hell off the table (assuming based on your post that the hell position is extremely uncommon). That still provides a clear argument that can leave the baby in limbo.

This is a clear theological and doctrinal impetus, based on a restricted afterlife for an aborted fetus, that adds a lot if import to the catholic pro-life movement.

Mormons do not have a theological stake in this based on the eternal implications to the fetus - in fact quite the opposite. Those prophets who have made declarations about still-births and infants suggest that they go straight to the glory of heaven. It is not unreasonable for many members to assume these states also apply to miscarriages and fetus subject to abortion.

As such Catholics have the double concern of abortion as a sin for the women (and decision maker/s) as well as having potential irreversible negative impacts on the afterlife outcome of the fetus it self.

This places the mormon conversation in a fundamentally different sphere to the Catholics.

We do not have clear doctrine as to stillbirths as we are not allowed to do Temple work for them as yet, although it is recommended that we keep records in that regards. This is a subject I have researched since I have a stillborn son and daughter buried out in Indiana. But it is clear that if a spirit attached to those bodies then they got a straight ticket to Heaven. What we are not clear about is when the spirit attaches to the body of the fetus, though some have suggested it is when the unborn starts kicking because of the encounter between Mary and Elisabeth.

[Bikeemikey]

We do not have clear doctrine as to stillbirths as we are not allowed to do Temple work for them as yet, although it is recommended that we keep records in that regards. This is a subject I have researched since I have a stillborn son and daughter buried out in Indiana. But it is clear that if a spirit attached to those bodies then they got a straight ticket to Heaven. What we are not clear about is when the spirit attaches to the body of the fetus, though some have suggested it is when the unborn starts kicking because of the encounter between Mary and Elisabeth.

I agree with your comments.