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

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lds.org/t...ortion?lang=eng

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

Ps: I know of no Church rule against wearing pants to GC. This Sunday is GC.

Edited April 3, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[go_utes01]

http://www.lds.org/t...ortion?lang=eng

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

Thanks for the clarification, not quite what I had in mind based on your previous post. I still do not agree with the Church's position regarding abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest, but for the health of mother (i.e. the mother is likely to die if the pregnancy continues) or if the baby has no chance of survival (especially if it will also endanger the mother), those are closer calls.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

They are defective, kill 'em. Scary. If what you are saying is true of the LDS position on abortion, I fundamentally disagree with it. Maybe I should wear pants to church in protest.

If we keep making so many exceptions our critics can see how we are not for life first and not opposed to abortion. Btw the way having sat in Church disciplinary counsels, I assure you the Church of Christ (LDS) sees this as a very serious sin, those who suggest otherwise are uninformed. Once had a young lady who wept bitterly, exclaiming, I kill my baby to avoid being found out for other sins. The three in the Bishopric were moved to tears as well, being one of them I assure you our tears were for her. She was in College at the time, he friends told her to do it, he teachers and school counselors. They convince her it was no big deal and her education was worth more...as she put it "they lied". Edited April 4, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bluebell]

Thanks for the clarification, not quite what I had in mind based on your previous post. I still do not agree with the Church's position regarding abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest,

After counsel and earnest prayer, if a girl who was raped feels God told her she may righteously get an abortion and does so, you believe she is sinning?

(the church's position is she isn't, but you said you disagree with that, so i'm trying to make sure i understand you correctly.)

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the clarification, not quite what I had in mind based on your previous post. I still do not agree with the Church's position regarding abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest, but for the health of mother (i.e. the mother is likely to die if the pregnancy continues) or if the baby has no chance of survival (especially if it will also endanger the mother), those are closer calls.

I've always said I agree with the Church on its position on abortion for members of the Church. That it should be rare, and not entered into lightly, or without serious prayer and Church leadership in consultation. The Church doesn't mandate abortion for rape or incest. It is just permissible.

My personal opinion is that I'm not wise enough to decide for someone else. That for those that aren't members of the Church it is best to allow that decision to between her, her doctor, her partner(As prudence allows), and whatever God(s) she worships.

[thesometimesaint]

If we keep making so many exceptions our critics can see how we are not for life first and not opposed to abortion. Btw the way having sat in Church disciplinary counsels, I assure you the Church of Christ (LDS) sees this as a very serious sin, those who suggest otherwise are uninformed. Once had a young lady who wept bitterly, exclaiming, I kill my baby to avoid being found out for other sins. The three in the Bishopric were moved to tears as well, being one of them I assure you our tears were for her. She was in College at the time, he friends told her to do it, he teachers and school counselors. They convince her it was no big deal and her education was worth more...as she put it they lied.

I think is a mistake to try to appeal to critics. We have well reasoned position on abortion that if implemented would over time reduce abortions to the very rare circumstances as stated.

[go_utes01]

After counsel and earnest prayer, if a girl who was raped feels God told her she may righteously get an abortion and does so, you believe she is sinning?

(the church's position is she isn't, but you said you disagree with that, so i'm trying to make sure i understand you correctly.)

I am not sure I am in a position to determine whether somebody is sinning or not; gratefully I am not called on to make that determination. But, I still believe that it is an incorrect conclusion to reach to kill the innocent baby based on the sins of the father. We believe that men/women/babies shall be punished for their own sins....I am not the girl praying, so I am not in a position to determine whether or what God reveals to her, but supposed revelation has been used to justify terrible things.

Edited April 3, 2013 by go_utes01

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think is a mistake to try to appeal to critics. We have well reasoned position on abortion that if implemented would over time reduce abortions to the very rare circumstances as stated.

I hope it remains this way.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not sure I am in a position to determine whether somebody is sinning or not; gratefully I am not called on to make that determination. But, I still believe that it is an incorrect conclusion to reach to kill the innocent baby based on the sins of the father. We believe that men/women/babies shall be punished for their own sins....I am not the girl praying, so I am not in a position to determine whether or what God reveals to her, but supposed revelation has been used to justify terrible things.

Without a father there is no innocent baby.

Forcing the woman to carry the baby to term is a abridgment of her agency.

Your revelation can not trump my revelation.

[go_utes01]

Without a father there is no innocent baby.

Forcing the woman to carry the baby to term is a abridgment of her agency.

Your revelation can not trump my revelation.

I don't think I understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying without a father there is no innocent baby, i.e. the baby isn't innocent because of his/her rapist father? If forcing the woman to carry the baby to term is an abridgment of her agency, isn't killing the unborn baby an abridgement of his/her agency? I don't believe that adding an additional trauma somehow eases the pain of the original trauma. Victimizing another does not help the original victim. It seems to me the guilt from killing an innocent baby because of the evil acts of his/her father would only bring further pain to the already injured mother/rape victim. And, nowhere did I say that my revelation trumps anybody else's revelation.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think I understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying without a father there is no innocent baby, i.e. the baby isn't innocent because of his/her rapist father? If forcing the woman to carry the baby to term is an abridgment of her agency, isn't killing the unborn baby an abridgement of his/her agency? I don't believe that adding an additional trauma somehow eases the pain of the original trauma. Victimizing another does not help the original victim. It seems to me the guilt from killing an innocent baby because of the evil acts of his/her father would only bring further pain to the already injured mother/rape victim. And, nowhere did I say that my revelation trumps anybody else's revelation.

There is no baby period.

At what point does a pregnant woman loose her personhood?

Melissa Rowland in Utah gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. She was arrested under the state's feticide law under the claim that by refusing cesarean surgery two weeks earlier than she ultimately had it, she caused the loss of one of the newborns.

The trauma of abortion is miniscule compared to the trauma of forced pregnancy and child birth.

But you did claim that the Church was wrong in its stated position that abortion was permissible under certain albeit rare circumstances.

[go_utes01]

There is no baby period.

At what point does a pregnant woman loose her personhood?

Melissa Rowland in Utah gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. She was arrested under the state's feticide law under the claim that by refusing cesarean surgery two weeks earlier than she ultimately had it, she caused the loss of one of the newborns.

The trauma of abortion is miniscule compared to the trauma of forced pregnancy and child birth.

But you did claim that the Church was wrong in its stated position that abortion was permissible under certain albeit rare circumstances.

Ok. I still think the Church's stance is incorrect. You don't have to agree. That is fine with me. At no point does a pregnant woman lose her personhood - not sure where you got that from anything I have said. But, I also believe that the innocent baby deserves respect and protection. As a society and individually, I believe we have an obligation to protect our brothers and sisters, and that obligation is greater the less the other is able to protect his/herself. In the case of an abortion, the unborn baby is totally unable to protect him/herself (done it unto the least among you), thus we have a heightened obligation. Moreover, I would differ with your claim that the trauma of abortion is miniscule compare to pregnancy and child birth - the ongoing psychological trauma of knowing that you killed an innocent baby can be severe (at least as testified by many post-abortive women). Furthermore, the trauma to the baby is much greater - you do not even seem to enter that trauma into your calculation, which, to me, is telling and a bit creepy.

[Calm]

In the case of an abortion, the unborn baby is totally unable to protect him/herself (done it unto the least among you), thus we have a heightened obligation.

And a woman who has been raped was unable to protect herself. Should we not therefore protect her when we have the chance?

There are women who if they were to remain pregnant with their rapist's child and having to confront that evidence of the reality of their rape would experience every day as if they were being raped yet again. Should protection be denied in the woman's case to protect the unborn baby?

There are women who would choose to commit suicide if forced to be pregnant by rape or incest. What protection does the unborn deserve that they do not?

Edited April 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Ok. I still think the Church's stance is incorrect. You don't have to agree. That is fine with me. At no point does a pregnant woman lose her personhood - not sure where you got that from anything I have said. But, I also believe that the innocent baby deserves respect and protection. As a society and individually, I believe we have an obligation to protect our brothers and sisters, and that obligation is greater the less the other is able to protect his/herself. In the case of an abortion, the unborn baby is totally unable to protect him/herself (done it unto the least among you), thus we have a heightened obligation. Moreover, I would differ with your claim that the trauma of abortion is miniscule compare to pregnancy and child birth - the ongoing psychological trauma of knowing that you killed an innocent baby can be severe (at least as testified by many post-abortive women). Furthermore, the trauma to the baby is much greater - you do not even seem to enter that trauma into your calculation, which, to me, is telling and a bit creepy.

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not your Bishop and doubt that anyone in position of authority in the Church will call you in for a nice talk. Unless you start publicly challenging them.

Malissa Rowland sure lost her personhood rights.

Sure the baby growing inside her has rights, but at what point do its rights override the rights of the woman? Is it a conception, before the woman even knows she pregnant, viability, first felt kick, at birth, or some other time? How about incest where the girl is repeated raped by her father? How about threats of violence for or against abortion? When the best religious, legal and medical minds in the country disagree. Do we compromise or should we go by your idea's? How about mine, or Fred's down the streets'?

[Stone holm]

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not your Bishop and doubt that anyone in position of authority in the Church will call you in for a nice talk. Unless you start publicly challenging them.

Malissa Rowland sure lost her personhood rights.

Sure the baby growing inside her has rights, but at what point do its rights override the rights of the woman? Is it a conception, before the woman even knows she pregnant, viability, first felt kick, at birth, or some other time? How about incest where the girl is repeated raped by her father? How about threats of violence for or against abortion? When the best religious, legal and medical minds in the country disagree. Do we compromise or should we go by your idea's? How about mine, or Fred's down the streets'?

Neither the Church, nor the SCOTUS, have ever recognized the personhood of an unborn baby. The Church doctrine as to when a baby becomes a person is cloudy, although there is some suggestion that it is when the baby starts kicking, etc. but even then it is not clear doctrine otherwise they would allow Temple work to be done for stillborns. The decision as to whether the stillborn was at one point a person within the womb, in other words a physical body united with a spirit, is not one the Church is yet prepared to enunciate. I believe most Mormons are opposed to gratuituos abortions of convenience, the problem is who should we entrust to make that decision: the woman in consultation with her husband (if she has one) and her Bishop (if she acknowledges that she has one) or the government. Normally, the majority of Mormons are reticent about having the government intrude into that kind of decisionmaking on a one way fits all basis. The Courts basing their decision on the State's interest in regulating such matters have basically said that the State can intrude using a sliding scale roughly based on viability outside the womb -- but the Courts have not said that the State has to intrude, they have only said when they can't intrude. Roe v Wade is not a perfect opinion because it is based upon the medical capabilities at the time it was written -- but it has functioned fairly well. The Federal law is fairly silent about when abortions are authorized, that has been pretty much left up to the States, the Federal laws and regulations are more focused on whether if authorized they can be financed with Federal program funds. So as far as Federal law is concerned the real debate is not whether women can or cannot have an abortion, its about whether poor women dependent upon Federal assistance can afford to have an abortion. If a woman is rich, she can always get a safe and legal abortion pretty much whenever she wants up to the moment of birth -- she may just have to travel to do so and pay for it herself. Hence the comment earlier in this thread that the wealthy get safe abortions and the poor get a clothes hanger.

[blackstrap]

One would hope that in the case of rape( incest is another matter ) ,the victim would immediately be examined ,evidence taken and a medical procedure performed to eliminate any possibility of pregancy. If the victim waits 3 months before approaching a physician , problems compound exponentially.

With incest , there should be a medical procedure done on the perpetrator !

[Stone holm]

One would hope that in the case of rape( incest is another matter ) ,the victim would immediately be examined ,evidence taken and a medical procedure performed to eliminate any possibility of pregancy. If the victim waits 3 months before approaching a physician , problems compound exponentially.

With incest , there should be a medical procedure done on the perpetrator !

In an ideal world where women don't shy away from confessing that they have been raped, I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, you do have women who feel ashamed and unclean because they have been raped, and you also have very high profile morons out there claiming that a pregnancy can't actually occur from a legitimate rape. So we have to work within a legal framework that has a somewhat closer connection to reality than in a non-existent ideal world.

[go_utes01]

While the act of rape (that would include incestual rape) is horrible, compounding one horrible act with another, i.e the killing of an innocent baby, does not make the situation better. The fact that the state or Supreme Court has not recognized the personhood of an unborn baby, does not mean that they are correct (these same institutions did not recognize people of African descent as persons either) - nor does the lack of pronouncement by the LDS Church authorities. Life begins at the beginning of life, i.e. conception - that is an irrefutable scientific fact. Abortion kills a human life, again a fact. Whether that life deserves protection from us individually or as a society appears debatable (which is a sad commentary on our society in my opinion).

[bluebell]

While the act of rape (that would include incestual rape) is horrible, compounding one horrible act with another, i.e the killing of an innocent baby, does not make the situation better. The fact that the state or Supreme Court has not recognized the personhood of an unborn baby, does not mean that they are correct (these same institutions did not recognize people of African descent as persons either) - nor does the lack of pronouncement by the LDS Church authorities. Life begins at the beginning of life, i.e. conception - that is an irrefutable scientific fact. Abortion kills a human life, again a fact. Whether that life deserves protection from us individually or as a society appears debatable (which is a sad commentary on our society in my opinion).

I'm guessing you are also against hormonal birth control as well then.

[go_utes01]

I'm guessing you are also against hormonal birth control as well then.

Yes. And embryonic stem cell research and many fertility treatments. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such.

Edited April 3, 2013 by go_utes01

[bluebell]

Yes. And embryonic stem cell research and many fertility treatments. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such.

I can certainly respect your beliefs.

Mine, in regards to the subject, match what the church teaches, because i do not believe the church would teach that abortions were acceptable under very rare circumstances, or that hormonal birth control was acceptable, if life began at conception. God seems to be able to be very clear when something is a grave sin, and so i don't believe that He would NOT have made it known were the church teaching a grievious sin was acceptable.

Like i said though, i respect the Catholic position on the matter, which your beliefs seem to mirror. If i did believe that life began at conception, there would be no other valid belief to hold, in my opinion.

[go_utes01]

I can certainly respect your beliefs.

Mine, in regards to the subject, match what the church teaches, because i do not believe the church would teach that abortions were acceptable under very rare circumstances, or that hormonal birth control was acceptable, if life began at conception. God seems to be able to be very clear when something is a grave sin, and so i don't believe that He would NOT have made it known were the church teaching a grievious sin was acceptable.

Like i said though, i respect the Catholic position on the matter, which your beliefs seem to mirror. If i did believe that life began at conception, there would be no other valid belief to hold, in my opinion.

There is no question that life begins at conception - scientifically speaking. Theologically, you could argue that that life has not yet been provided a spirit (or some such argument), but life definitely begins at conception. A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

If something as complex as a fetus or even a zygote were found on another planet, science would definitely conclude that it was a living organism.

To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Edited April 3, 2013 by go_utes01

[bluebell]

There is no question that life begins at conception - scientifically speaking. Theologically, you could argue that that life has not yet been provided a spirit (or some such argument), but life definitely begins at conception. A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

If something as complex as a fetus or even a zygote were found on another planet, science would definitely conclude that it was a living organism.

I realize all of this. But all life is not equal, not in science and not to God.

As I said before, God has not stated that human life exists at conception, and per the teachings of what I believe to be His church, it doesn't.

I don't believe that makes abortions ok though, except when God says so under rare circumstances.

Edited April 3, 2013 by bluebell

[go_utes01]

I realize all of this. But all life is not equal, not in science and not to God.

As I said before, God has not stated that human life exists at conception, and per the teachings of what I believe to be His church, it doesn't.

I don't believe that makes abortions ok though, except when Gid says so under rare circumstances.

If not human life, what kind of life begins at conception? The zygote has distinct, unique HUMAN DNA.

[Duncan]

Funny thing about the Church's position, sometimes the local leader's opinion is what the Church's position is. For example. About 6 or so years ago a YW in my folks' ward was raped at a school camp. The Bishop was pushing for her to adopt it out but her family said no and so they are raising this child. But abortion was seemingly out of the question.