Elder andersen on abortion

[Rivers]

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Rivers

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Really? It seems like Church leaders have spoken about this on multiple occasions (see, e.g., here).

Have you not encountered these remarks before, or is it that you do not find them persuasive (and, if not, why not)?

 

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

I think the Church allows rare exceptions (to just about anything) because the application of and governance by correct principles is much more complicated than teaching them. Experiencing the interaction of correct principles is far more complicated than hearing about them in isolation. Our personal duty is more complicated than the Church's.

Edited April 6, 2021 by CV75

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

I've thought about this as well.  A few thoughts.

1. The "rare exceptions on this issue" are addressed in sec. 38.6.1 of the Handbook:

Quote

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:

• Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.

• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

2. Pregnancy resulting from forcible rape may, I think, be based on the lack of volition involved.  A woman who is involuntarily impregnated by force is situated quite differently from other contexts.

3. I am not sure about the basis for the exception involving incest, though the high likelihood of genetic issues may play a role (see here), as well as the likelihood of manipulation/coercion (IOW, a lack of volition).  I am also not sure if "forcible" is intended to modify both "rape" and "incest."

4. As to the "life or health of the mother" exception, that seems to pertain to the value of the mother's life as counterbalancing the value of the life of the child.  This may particularly be so where the mother has other children who will be impacted by the death of the mother (or substantial impact on her health).

5. As to the "severe defects" exception, that one seems fairly straightforward.

6. As noted above, these exceptions are not automatic.

7. Abortion is not defined as "murder" for the purpose of membership in the Church.  See sec. 38.2.3.13 of the Handbook.

8. There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  This maxim is so well-known there is even a Wikipedia article about it:

Quote

The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.

I suppose we can formulate "hard cases" and present them to religious people with the apparent purpose of tripping them up in their faith, or (assuming a more benign motive) getting them to re-examine what they believe and why (or even as apparently as an attempt to justify/rationalize incest).  But I don't think it's a very useful exercise.  "Don't lie" is a very good maxim to live by.  "Ah," you can say, "but what about people who hid Jews from the Nazis, and lied to the Nazis about it?"  That, I think, is a "hard case."  But it's not one that really merits much attention, particularly if it is presented with the intention of persuading someone that everything is relative, that lying is generally perfectly acceptable, and so on.

So it goes, I think, with the very rare exceptions noted above.  They represent "hard cases." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2021 by smac97

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

The problem with a "one size fits all" policy is that one size doesn't fit all. 

The scriptures plainly teach "Thou shalt not kill", and yet the church does not advocate judicial punishment for soldiers in wartime, civilians in self-defense, or State officers of the law in the carrying out of executions. The deaths in these situations are all intentional. The scriptures (OT) even prescribe the death penalty in certain situations, including adultery, and is that not killing? In ancient times, men were even put to death for the crime of breaking the Sabbath -- apparently with the Lord's permission. So God Himself appears to go along with exceptions. God Himself killed the baby that resulted from the adulterous liaison between Solomon David and Bathsheba. This wasn't the baby's fault, either.

So why does the Church have to go strictly by a principle that even God hasn't spoken a definite word on? Is there a commandment not to abort an unborn child? I haven't seen one.

The Lord has a prophet upon the earth at this time, and thus a perfect opportunity to address the matter of abortion in a very clear manner. And perhaps He has, and the policy expressed in the General Handbook is the mind and will of the Lord. Of course I recognize that the Lord does let His servants work out things for themselves, and perhaps they have done so in accordance with His will. It's possible, don't you think?

You can pray about it and get a confirmation if you are still worried about it.

Edited to fix oopsie between David and Solomon

Edited April 6, 2021 by Stargazer
fixing oopsie between David and Solomon

[Zeniff]

31 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

I think rare exceptions exist or can be made for every rule we try to live by, generally speaking.  As Joseph Smith said, that which is wrong under one circumstance may be and often is right under another.

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

I think rare exceptions exist or can be made for every rule we try to live by, generally speaking.  As Joseph Smith said, that which is wrong under one circumstance may be and often is right under another.

For our edification, you might want to provide the quote or source.

[Rivers]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So it goes, I think, with the very rare exceptions noted above.  They represent "hard cases." 

Thanks,

-Smac

That’s a great way to put it. 

Whenever I discuss this topic with pro-choice people, they always bring up the hard cases.

 Someone recently asked me, “What if a 13-year old girl is raped?”  I responded, “Kill the rapist. Not the baby.”  But I had to concede that this was a really hard case and acknowledged that the church to which I belong would allow an exception in such a situation.  But I still say the rapist needs to be executed.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Rivers

[Rivers]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

For our edification, you might want to provide the quote or source.

That’s from a letter to one of his wive’s on the subject of plural marriage if I’m not mistaken.  

[JustAnAustralian]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

That’s from a letter to one of his wive’s on the subject of plural marriage if I’m not mistaken.  

As for a readable source

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t41fb0:t

[rongo]

I'm as traditional conservative as they come (and am anti-abortion), and I learned firsthand that faithful Mormons can be confronted with rare exceptions. My wife has a rare clotting disorder and has nearly died several times. She has had sections of her large and small intestine removed because of necrotic clotting, and is on high doses of warfarin for life. We're fortunate to have our four children, because women who have what she has usually can't have any (spontaneous abortion). After her GI tract was resectioned (put back together), we had a couple of pregnancy scares. She cannot safely deliver normally or by C-section, and the blood thinners are very bad for fetal development. We were using all means at our disposal (she also can't have oral contraceptives because of their effect on clotting), and I really did not want a vasectomy, but finally got one. I didn't have to consult with the bishop, because I was the bishop.  We couldn't keep rolling the dice on conventional methods. 

When we thought we were pregnant, I seriously considered whether we would consider abortion. My wife --- not a chance. She said, "We trust in God, and in the priesthood, then." Completely out of the question in her book. For me, though, for the first time I could conceive (pun intended) of faithful members being confronted with legitimate exceptions.

I don't personally like the idea of aborting a healthy child who is the result of rape or incest (the child is innocent), and I think most of the "for the health of the mother" exceptions actually refer to "mental health" if the baby is carried to term, not physical life-saving of the mother. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by rongo

[Zeniff]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

For our edification, you might want to provide the quote or source.

"History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843] [addenda]," p. 3 [addenda], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 6, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/284

 

Addenda • 27 August 1842

813 <August 27. Page 1387.> “Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received! That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

I think they allow the exceptions because we have no doctrine on when the spirit enters the body and we do not believe that aborted babies will not get a chance to be born.

[strappinglad]

Is there a statement on Capital Punishment from Church leaders ? I searched the on line handbook but no results. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a statement on Capital Punishment from Church leaders ? I searched the on line handbook but no results. 

The current official stance is that they have no official stance.

[JustAnAustralian]

7 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a statement on Capital Punishment from Church leaders ? I searched the on line handbook but no results.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/capital-punishment

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment.

It's been on the website in that form at least as far back as Feb 2011.

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a statement on Capital Punishment from Church leaders ? I searched the on line handbook but no results. 

The Handbook isn't the only place to look, actually.  In any case, it would hard for the Church to be opposed to it, since the scriptures are very clear on the subject, and lo! and behold! see the Guide to the Scriptures regarding it:

Capital Punishment

See also Murder

Punishment by death for a crime committed, especially associated with punishment for murder.

• Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, Gen. 9:6 (JST, Gen. 9:12–13).
• The murderer shall surely be put to death, Num. 35:16.
• Murderers who deliberately kill shall die, 2 Ne. 9:35.
• Thou art condemned to die according to the law, Alma 1:13–14.
• He that murdered was punished unto death, Alma 1:18.
• The law requires the life of him who has murdered, Alma 34:12.
• He that kills shall die, D&C 42:19.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The problem with a "one size fits all" policy is that one size doesn't fit all. 

I think God is capable of providing a policy that exhaustively covers every possible situation that could ever occur to any member of the human family throughout all of time.

Can you imagine how long that would be though? 

Now if only God had thought to give mankind some kind of...gift which would allow us to directly receive knowledge and inspiration about (literally) everything we should do. 

 

[Zeniff]

9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a statement on Capital Punishment from Church leaders ? I searched the on line handbook but no results. 

You would need to ask the individual Church leaders for their own statements.  There isn't a unified statement from all Church leaders stating what all of them think about this issue, or any other issue, as far as I know.

Statements from the First Presidency represent what those 3 people think and believe, and statements from The Quorum of Twelve Apostles represent what those 12 people think and believe. 

I don't know the total number of Church leaders but there are a lot more than only those 15 men.

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think God is capable of providing a policy that exhaustively covers every possible situation that could ever occur to any member of the human family throughout all of time.

Can you imagine how long that would be though? 

Now if only God had thought to give mankind some kind of...gift which would allow us to directly receive knowledge and inspiration about (literally) everything we should do. 

 

Yeah, imagine that... 😄 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

Only the first word is capitalized in a thread title, so no worries about this. Even exceptions for both, “Rape and Incest”, members are still asked to fast and pray before proceeding. However the fruits of Rape and Incest, allow those already brutalized, to be harmed even more, than the original act of barbarism. 

[Duncan]

I think capital punishment is entirely out of the Church's, no pun intended, hands.  You don't see "how to have a hanging, firing squad lethal injection" in the guide for stake presidents

Life isn't so black and white, it would be nice to have apostles who were faithful but some have been exed, it would be nice to have every person baptized stay active but that isn't reality. I wonder what happened to the kids of those cities, 16 plus, destroyed in the Book of Mormon prior to Christ's coming? Like Paul said we look through a glass darkly

Edited April 7, 2021 by Duncan

[strappinglad]

Thanks for the help guys. I just looked in one place so I probably fit into that group that Pres. Nelson talked about . 😬

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I thought I’d start another thread on a a talk which may stir up controversy.  

 I for one absolutely loved Andersen’s talk on the sanctity of life. 

However, I sometimes question why the church allows for rare exceptions on this issue.  

Because God goes after the one.  Sometimes the one is the baby.  Sometimes the one is the mom.  

Some will always choose the mother over the child. Some will always choose the child over the mother. Christ knows which one, mother or child, is the one who is lost* and needs saved.  If we can't imagine ourselves in both places then we don't have the knowledge God has in determining who the lost one is. 

*one can be lost in many different ways.

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

Edit:  I could have sworn I capitalized Andersen in the title.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

37 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Thanks for the help guys. I just looked in one place so I probably fit into that group that Pres. Nelson talked about .

But then you asked here, so that's still putting in effort.