Yes, yes, I know. This is the third post on abortion. However, given the renewed interest in the issue (courtesy of Ms. Palin and her fairly extreme views) and Elder Russell M. Nelson's article, Abortion: an Assault on the Defenseless, in the October 2008 Ensign, I thought it would be an appropriate time for a review.
First, Sarah Palin's position is even more conservative than the church's position. Here is the church's official statement on abortion:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.Here is Palin's position:
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:The Church teaches its members that even these rare circumstances do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
- Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
- A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeapardy, or
- A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger. That's the only exception Palin would make, though . . . She doesn't make exception for rape and incest, only for the health of the mother.
So, as a member of the church, who agrees with and supports the church's position, and who is also fairly conservative, where does that leave me with regard to Palin's position? Should I support current laws? Given Elder Nelson's article, I don't think so. He seems to have some scathing statements for current abortion law.
Here are a few:This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice . . .
Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong . . .
When the controversies about abortion are debated, "individual right of choice" is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman's choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life - and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.
As Latter-Day Saints, we should stand up for choice - the right choice - not simply for choice as a method . . .
Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God . . .
I invite you to read the whole article. I think it is quite good, particularly the part about how
a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body . . . But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences . . . So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice - to begin or not begin that course. When conceptions does occur, that choice has already been made.
(probably because it sounds almost identical to what I said in my The Value of Human Life post:)
I am pro-choice, too. I believe women have the right to be responsible about their own reproductive choices. When you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the potential consequences, once of which is pregnancy . . . that pregnancy represents a choice that was already made . . .
Anyways, Elder Nelson does not clearly endorse one political party or one political party's platform or candidate. In the article, he does reiterate the church's position on rape and incest when he says
Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman's freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered adviseable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.
So, how does this affect our own position in electing candidates and voting for laws? Palin is obviously to the right of the church, but current laws (and Obama in particular) are far left of the church on abortion. In our previous discussions, we've agreed that although we support the church's position, it would be a nightmare to enforce. Does that mean we should leave the laws as they currently stand? Personally, I took the remarks in Elder Nelson's article to mean that our current laws are not adequate in protecting the unborn. We need to do more. What do you think?
15 comments:
Under the law, I'm not sure what else, if anything, can be done. I don't think any of us have been able to come up with a way of eliminating unwarranted abortions without robbing victims of sexual crimes the right to terminate a resulting pregnancy. The only thing that could perhaps be changed is not making it so "easy" to get an abortion with no questions asked. However, the downside to this is that rape victims will probably encounter more hurdles and therefore the fetus will have more time to grow and then we're talking about aborting a fetus that's more than just a few days or weeks old.
I think the focus has to be on prevention, since eliminating abortion at the end of the line is seemingly impossible. I think there are a few main ways we can do this:
1) Focusing on media, since they are the ones who have sexualized society more than anything. I don't think we necessarily have to go back to the days of "I Love Lucy," but I think most will agree that media has gone overboard now. There isn't a whole lot left up to the imagination anymore. As well, many abortions are the result of infidelity.
2) Greater emphasis on abstinence, but not at the expense of birth control and sex education. And I don't mean just in schools, but having clinics open to the general population. We had this back in my home town in Canada. Anyone could go to the "health unit" for advice on different health matters, whether it was vaccinations for going abroad, a pregnancy test, or what methods of birth control were available. And it was free and open to all. I know that many find it hypocritical to be handing out free condoms, but people have been having sex outside of marriage since the beginning of time. It's not likely we're going to be able to stop them from doing it in 2008. We may, however, be able to help prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and therby an unwarranted abortion.
3) Coming up with a concrete plan on what we're going to do as a nation and society to take care of babies that a mother may be inclined to abort otherwise. Those who resort to abortion are often poor and are incapable of raising the child in a healthy environment. Some have been addicted to drugs and the baby will be born with addictions or defects. Many are probably minorities and it can be problematic to find willing came up with a more concrete plan for adoption, and if the women were thoroughly educated about these options before resorting to an abortion, we would perhaps reduce the number of abortions being performed.
4) Sadly, the majority of women who find out they're carrying a baby with Downs opt for an abortion. Even though I don't like Palin, I applaud her decision to give birth to her youngest son. Even though some will always want a "perfect" child, some will perhaps decide against terminating a Downs pregnancy if they know that they will be able to raise the child. The special care that Downs children need is not cheap. Many are without health care, and the child will need special education and extra help. I think that this is what overwhelms people and one of the main reasons why they choose to abort.
I just want to point out that there's a name for the Church's position: Pro-choice.
--David
While the issue of abortion often takes center stage in the political arena, I actually think that it shouldn't. Mainly because it distracts from other issues.
Because abortion is more religiously charged than, say, taxes or alternative energy, religious voters tend to ignore other relevant issues and vote for a candidate mainly because of his or her views on abortion. By doing so, voters fail to recognize the other immoral stances a certain candidate might maintain about issues that do not so obviously announce themselves as moral.
While the posts I've seen on this blog thankfully discuss political issues in a more sophisticated light, I worry that a large percentage of religious voters oversimplify their support for any particular candidate. If we're going to make a moral judgment about abortion, we need to be consistent and discuss all issues with underlying assumptions of morality.
Thank you, Kathy - that has been my opinion from day 1. We have this whole body of "moral voters" who vote on the so-called "moral issues" With seeming disregard for anything else. And by Moral issues, I mean abortion and gay marriage. If you don't believe me, look at the HUGE influx of visitors and people who became politically active on this site alone when we discussed gay marriage. I mean we average around 30 comments a post, and that one had 205! People find their so-called "moral high ground" and leave real issues of governance to be neglected and atrophied.
I have a hard time with Elder Nelson's stand because he demonises it so bad - saying there are two lives involved, etc., but in the end, if there happens to be a rape or incest, then that second life ceases to matter. If you wnat to play the "attack on unborn life" card, then, lets be hontest - that unborn child still has a right to life regardless of whether it is the product of rape/incest or not. But in Elder Nelson's article, he emotionally plays up the unborn child's right to live, and as soon as rape/incest come into play, he throws emphasis on right to life out the window. Does anyone find this peculiar?
I've actually been puzzled sometimes as to why the Church has the abortion stance that it does, that it allows these exceptions, such as in the case of rape. Why does the Church not share Palin's stance? Really, in order to truly be 100% "pro-life," you need share Palin's stance. Regardless of the circumstances of abortion, whether it was performed after a rape or an adulterous affair, the end result is the same: the killing of an unborn baby, or at the very least, a human fetus with potential to become a fully-developed baby.
So, killing is killing, but the Church seems to believe that in some cases, one life should take precedence over the other (i.e. the mother's life/mental/physical well-being is more important than the unborn baby). I agree with the Church's stance and I believe that's the way it needs to be, but I have to admit that I'm sometimes surprised that the Church doesn't share Palin ultra-conservative stance.
Why do you all suppose that the Church is actually to the left of Palin? Is it to avoid being labelled as a Church of extremists without compassion for rape victims, or is it because one life truly is more important than another in some unfortunate instances (such as rape) and the Church recognizes this?
I believe it's the latter. I hope it is.
Here's what I think is the key difference between the Church's position and Palin's: Palin believes that "life begins at conception, that is, the embryo is a "person," a full human being with all the moral consideration due any human being, from the moment of conception. The LDS Church does not. As I understand it, the Church considers the question of the onset of personhood a mystery. It happens sometime between conception and extra-uterine viability, but just when we don't know. This is all bound up with the idea of the premortal spirit entering a physical body, a process that, to put it mildly, is not well understood. (One Jewish and Christian tradition says that the soul enters the body at the time of the fetus's quickening, when the mother first feels it move.)
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe things have changed, but this has always been my understanding of the basis for the comparatively moderate LDS position on abortion.
--David
I found this article by Dallin H. Oaks called Weightier Matters from 2001. Perhaps it has some of the answers to questions pose here. He says:
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals . . .
In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. 1 Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.” . . .
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”
questions *posed*
In the excerpt above, Oaks is offering reasons why a woman should choose not to have an abortion, but he says nothing at all about whether the state should proscribe the woman's choice. So his argument, at least as excerpted above, is irrelevant to the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Nothing he says above contradicts the basic pro-choice position that the fundamental choice belongs to the woman, not to the state.
His argument is a good example of the often misunderstood fact that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.
--David
I think Stephanie's excerpt was clear on why rape and incest make a difference. Responsibilities have to do with choices and in the case of rape and incest a choice was not made. Our agency is more important than our human life. Life doesn't end with death and unfortunately it is better for terrible things to occur than to dispossess a person of their agency unjustly.
I have to say, maybe I just take it all too lightly, but I were the victim of rape and got pregnant, I'm not so sure I would go to my bishop for advice on whether or not to get an abortion. To be honest, I'd be afraid of being persuaded to not have an abortion, and so I think it would be easier to make the decision on my own without any external influence from either side. I would totally respect someone's decision to discuss it with their bishop, but I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with it. Especially with some of the bishops I've had in the past, one of whom told me many years ago that adoption was not acceptable in the eyes of the Lord for couples who can conceive on their own. If there was ever a time I wouldn't want to just hear some bishop's personal opinion, it would be during the time of contemplating abortion. But of course, we never really know what we'd do in a situation until we go through it ourselves.
Anyone else feel the same way?
David,
I think the following excerpt answers your concerns over what Elder Oaks meant:
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances.
He is speaking about the law here, and not just a philosophy.
Well, Oaks may be speaking of the law, but not without a lot of circumlocution.... I would suggest that if he meant to say abortion should not be legal in all circumstances he would have said so. Instead he said that the Church's beliefs cannot rightly be used as support for that position.
And surely he means that the woman (in consultation with a doctor and a bishop) should make the decision, and not that the law should foreclose on her decision, no?
Scenario One: Abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or incest. If a woman or abortionist is arrested on suspicion of ending a pregnancy not caused by rape or incest, the question is settled by the state.
Scenario Two: Abortion is legal, and the question of whether a given abortion is right or wrong is settled by the woman, in consultation with her doctor and bishop. After such consultation, the woman chooses (and the Church hopes she chooses in accordance with the Church's guidelines).
Isn't Oaks basically talking about the second scenario? Or am I to believe that the woman is to consult with her doctor and her bishop, who may disagree with her about the circumstances of the pregnancy and tell her she has no choice?
Of course there are people who use "these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances." Look hard enough and you can find people who believe just about anything. I'm more interested in those beliefs the Church uses a basis for its pro-choice position. What are those beliefs? Its stress on agency, and its uncertainty about when the spirit enters the body. (And I would add, a certain humane concern for women notably absent in some churches.)
--David
Rick
In my opinion Elder Nelson's point about there being 2 lives to consider related to abortion is valid and that he does not mean the fetus does not matter, you said:
"but in the end, if there happens to be a rape or incest, then that second life ceases to matter."
What I think happens is that a woman has to decide much like a soldier does whether killing another person is the right thing to do. It is not a decision to take lightly or in haste. Just as there can be "justified wars" there may be instances where aborting a pregnancy is justified.
There may be people, like Governor Palin who feel like the people of Ammon that they can not take another's life.
Or a person may feel that a mother of three who will die if the pregnancy would progress to term may be justified in sacrificing the one for the many.
I do not think there is a simple line to draw and that ultimately it is the woman choice to make. I simply pray they really consider the implications and do not decide out of convenience.
Ruel
"There may be people, like Governor Palin who feel like the people of Ammon that they can not take another's life."
Unless the person is in a military uniform. :)
Post a Comment