It seems that only the most controversial gets much attention here on Mormon Matters, so I thought I would weigh on the subject of the abortion and the unborn. Let me start by saying that I am unabashedly pro-choice.
I am pro-choice for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I don’t like making personal choices for others, especially women, in the area of reproduction; Secondly, I belong to a religious faith that believes wholeheartedly that choice or agency is good and that not having a choice is bad.
Of course, some would argue that the choice comes from whether or not to have unprotected sexual relations when one is not in a position, such as marriage, to raise a child. That, after making the choice to have sex, if one were to find she is pregnant, the choice has been made and the child must be carried and brought to term. Frankly, I respect that train of thought as well.
I respect the fact that as a fetus grows in the womb, it becomes a person and that that life should be respected. There is no direct revelation as to when the Spirit enters the body. But, my reading of Genesis indicates to me that life truly begins when the “breath of life” is given.
And the LORD God aformed bman of the cdust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the dbreath of life; and eman became a living fsoul. (Genesis 2:7), see also (Moses 3:4-7, 19; Abr. 5:7, Gen. 7:22, Ezek. 37:5, Ezek. 37:10, Zech. 12:1, Rev. 11:11)
I will not address at this time the advancements of medical science that allows a fetus a chance of survival at as little as 25 weeks gestation.
My pro-choice position does not extend to late term or so-called partial birth abortions. I think that it is wrong to carry a fetus beyond three months and then decide to abort it. In fact, I deplore abortion at anytime. You could say that I am anti-abortion. For those on the so-called pro-life side, they would say you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. But, too bad, I am.
I deplore abortion for the purpose of convenience or contraception. I find it morally disgusting that, with methods available to prevent pregnancy including abstinence, there should be a demand for that use of abortion. I support the use of abortion, as the Church teaches, for instances of rape, incest, health of the mother or, if a competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But, even in those cases, it is not automatic, but should be done with thoughtful fasting and prayer.
I am also in favor of parental notification laws that require a minor female to get permission from her parents for an abortion. I see situations where a court may have to intervene but I believe those are rare.
Easy for me to say, I’m a man.
Getting back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that some groups are so adamant regarding their so-called “pro-life” position that it has become a religion unto itself. In many cases these are professed Christians and conservative in their politics. So, on one hand, it seems ironic that some are so militant that they would bomb an abortion clinic and are willing to take another’s life (remember, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “Thou shalt not kill) in defense of their position. On the other hand, a tenet of the conservative political movement is less government intrusion in our lives, but yet it seems, they want exactly the opposite when it comes to abortion. Granted not all are that extreme.
There appears to be little or no discussion of what happens to children when they are born to mothers and fathers who don’t want them. There is a lot of talk about the 48M abortions that have been performed since Roe v Wade (National Right to Life.). It is a disturbingly high number. It seems that we all need to work to reduce that number as close to zero as possible. However, those same people who are showing pictures of aborted fetuses and militantly protesting do not also appear to care as much about the growing numbers of child mistreatment and fatalities (mistreatment at 47 children per 1000 and deaths at 2.4 per 100,000 children in 2006, Department of Health and Human Services study.) So are these folks really “pro-life” or just “anti-abortion?” Do they have any answers for the growing problem of abuse?
And do they just worship the Unborn?
Loading ...
you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. But, too bad, I am
So are about 60% of Americans.
I never thought I would say this, Jeff, but I agree with you 100%.
The pro-love movement.
Actually Jeff, while I would never characterize myself as ‘pro-choice’ due to the politically-laden stupidity surrounding that term (and it’s counter-part ‘pro-life’, which I also reject, FWIW), I think you summarize my position fairly well–thoughtful and nuanced.
One cannot responsibly argue that abortion is a moral choice beyond a certain point in the pregnancy except in certain very, very rare instances, and even then it should never be an automatic decision. If anyone makes that decision lightly, then they are doing so without regard for either the psychological impact on the mother in the long run OR for the potential of the unborn child. Both of which are immoral and unethical courses of behavior.
I would add, however, that I fully believe that eventually medical technology has the potential to make the entire question irrelevant for the most part. I really hope to see artificial wombs become fully developed so that those who are considering abortion can say ‘no, I don’t need to do that, let’s put the child here and allow it to be adopted to a loving family’. There are far too many people who would love to have children and simply cannot for various reasons that would gladly adopt a child. There are another great many loving families who would gladly adopt a child rather than see it aborted.
I think artificial wombs combined with the ability to artificially and indefinitely delay the development of a fetus into a baby will solve the abortion question. It isn’t very often that I see a technological solution to a social or moral problem. But I think that this might actually be a possibility for us in the not too distant future. The only problem? I have no idea if anyone is actually working on this. I sincerely hope that they are. If not, you had better believe that when/if I ever have the money I will be putting it towards such research–because I think its invaluable. I also think it could be used in assisting couples who have difficulty with infertility for various reasons. Are there other moral/ethical questions surrounding the use of artificial wombs? Absolutely, but I see them as a potential solver for the abortion debate.
Unfortunately, what I also see is that politicians don’t really want this debate solved–it brings votes to both sides (yes it does). Democrats like it for the pro-abortion folks it brings, and Republicans love the debate because of the anti-abortion crowd that they can ride into office on occasion. The only politicians that don’t like it are the one’s who are truly moderate and have a really nuanced position–who have really thought about the issues and decide to lay it before the public. Because the public likes to hear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the matter, not a reasoned argument–the reasoned arguments always starts to sound like avoiding the question.
I have always been interested in the related theological concept of when the spirit enters: at conception or at birth. It is an interesting question to Mormons because Jesus appeared in the Americas in spirit form THE DAY BEFORE he was born.
Personally I find Abortion completely abhorrent, but I still find myself supporting pro-choice ideas and avoiding rather than outlawing: cutting red tape on adoption, promoting knowledge and contraception and trying to figure out ways to support mothers and families that can’t get by on the money they make. Above all teaching responsibility to my children so they don’t make tragic mistakes.
Thanks for the thoughtful and original take Jeff, I think it will take fresh thinking to eliminate abortion and this is a start.
I think there is probably the same percentage of anti-abortionites in the pro-life camp as there are pro-abortionites in the choice camp.
I would consider that statment a red herring. Can you defend the idea that those who protest abortion are less concerned or less involved in discouraging and preventing child abuse or neglect? Or are you arguing that an abused child would have been better off had they never been born at all?
3. BiV
Pro-Love! I LOVE IT!
#2 Captain
It was bound to happen sooner or later. You know what they say about a broken clock
#3 BiV
Thanks for sharing that. I concur. “What the world needs now is love, sweet love….”
#4 Ben-O
Artificial Womb? Wow, hadn’t ever thought of that as a solution? I have a potential post coming about medical advances in general.
#6 MAC
“I would consider that statement a red herring. Can you defend the idea that those who protest abortion are less concerned or less involved in discouraging and preventing child abuse or neglect?”
Nope, can’t defend it. Just an observation. With the abortion rate going down and the abuse rate going up, it is a matter for where we turn our focus. It is also a manner of a focus on the lives that are here now and not on the ones that may or may not make it to full person hood. I think the question of whether an abused child was better off not being born is answered by the fact that we must come to earth to gain a body. What another person does to that body is another story.
I think in any discussion we owe it all sides of the debate to state their strongest argument and then respond to it. In my mind, the strongest argument of the pro-life movement is that, as wonderful as “choice” is, there are simply some “choices” that nobody has a right to make. For example, in this country white folks used to have the choice of declaring that black persons were worth only 3/5 of a person for the purpose of legislative districting. What gives white folks the “choice” to devalue a human being like that? White folks also had the “choice” to buy, sell, and trade black folks. Or whites could often commit crimes against blacks without any real fear of punishment from the courts. Again, who ever gave white folks the “choice” to decide that a black life was worth less protection than a white life?
Similarly, the pro-life movement believes nobody has the “choice” to devalue the life of an unborn child; nobody has the right to say that an unborn child is, essentially, 3/5 of a person, is entitled to less legal protection, and can be killed.
As a side note, I found it interesting that in CA’s recent election, a majority of voters voted to require poultry farmers to use larger cages for their animals (effectively taking away the “choice” of poultry farmers to use smaller cages), but then rejected a measure that would have required abortion doctors to give parental notification before performing an invasive medical procedure (i.e., abortion) on minors, when those same minors wouldn’t even be given an aspirin for a headache at their high schools without parental consent.
So if I understand the CA election results correctly, voters are more concerned about the welfare of chickens than unborn children. Interesting world we live in.
Andrew<
“Similarly, the pro-life movement believes nobody has the “choice” to devalue the life of an unborn child; nobody has the right to say that an unborn child is, essentially, 3/5 of a person, is entitled to less legal protection, and can be killed.”
I think I made that distinction that some (like yourself) believe that the “Choice” was to have unprotected sex or an inconvenient pregnancy. I respect that POV. But, I don’t get where you come up with 3/5 of a person?
It seems to me that society treats a miscarriage different than a stillbirth, different than death within days, versus the death of a child of three, for example. So, should we be having funerals for miscarriages?
Jeff, Roe v. Wade essentially says that unborn children are entitled to legal protection, but only a fraction of the legal protection of born children. The degree of protection to which an unborn child is entitled increases as he/she develops in the womb. Pro-lifers liken that formulation to the infamous “3/5 of a person” line in the original Constitution with regard to slaves. Incidentally, many legal scholars and medical professionals believe the Roe v. Wade formula (from the 70’s) is vastly outdated because of all we’ve learned about fetal development since then.
Also, to set the record straight, I don’t consider myself “pro-life” in the most absolute sense of the word. I believe there are exceptions where it’s the lesser of two evils. However, I do think we owe it to the pro-life folks to state their arguments as best they can be. The argument I was setting forth was different from the argument that “your choice was to have sex.” The argument I raise is whether anyone has a right to choose to assign a value to another’s life.
Andrew,
Thanks for clarify that point, I hadn’t heard that before. The questions of having a “right” to choose to assign value to another’s life” is an interesting ethical dilemma. Since I think those kind of decisions are made every day and not just in the abortion arena.
“Secondly, I belong to a religious faith that believes wholeheartedly that choice or agency is good and that not having a choice is bad”
I have never understood this argument with respect to abortion. Maybe someone can explain it to me because I am obviously the only one who doesn’t get the argument. I don’t understand what laws have to do with choice in this circumstance. By making grand theft auto illegal, has society removed the persons choice to commit that crime? No, they just make it illegal. Should murder be legal so that people can exercise their agency more freely? I don’t understand that argument.
Jeff,
“I will not address at this time the advancements of medical science that allows a fetus a chance of survival at as little as 25 weeks gestation.”
The actual number is 21 weeks. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth
I think this number is very important and it’s where I draw the line in the sand. I have two kids that were born prematurely and it helps to bring the reality of mid to late term abortion home.
Abortion makes me physically ill to even think about. I have always and will probably always vote pro-life. I’m also a realist and think that compromises must be made. For me that compromise will be pegged at where an unborn child can survive outside the womb with or without assistance. So for me it makes sense that abortion should be 99% illegal after 20 weeks with some sort of difficult exception process in place. Before 20 weeks… well.. I don’t even want to type it.
Benjamin O,
Very interesting post. I think you make excellent points. I’m very intrigued, not only because of my premature kids, but because of many first and second hand experiences with infertility treatments, including invetro fertilizations, frozen embryo transfers, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
I beleive that it is only a matter of time before science will be able to do exactly what you talk about. They can already house a embryo for the first week to almost two weeks of growth. On the back end its down to 21 weeks. So really there’s only about 19 weeks that’s a grey area at this point. No doubt that time will be steadily reduced as this field advances.
Does this call for a Matrix quote? “Humans are no longer born. They are grown.” Good stuff if you ask me!
Christopher,
There is a distinct difference between personal choice and societal consequences. What you do with yourself is one thing, when it affects others, it is entirely different.
Everything we do affects other people, whether we realize it or not. Irrespective of whether the fetus is included in the definition of “others”, so many other people could also be impacted by the decision to abort from people that the unborn child would have affected to potential grandparents, etc.
I guess another way of framing the debate is to ask: Which is the more fundamental right — Life or Liberty?
It seems the pro-choice crowd would say Liberty (i.e., the liberty of the pregnant woman to abort the unborn child), but the pro-life crowd would say Life (i.e., the life of the unborn child).
Working in the medical field, I have experienced different emotional responses in relationship to choices women have reported to me regarding their decisions to abort. One was sad acceptance when a 40ish year-old woman decided to abort a baby with a lethal genetic disorder. Her health may have been threatened by a pregnancy at her age and it would have place her ability to take care of her other children at risk. It was sadness because it ended her dream of who that child would become. Another emotion was relief when an unstable and manipulative single mother of two told me after the fact that she had aborted a child conceived with a, now, ex-boyfriend. I just thought about how complicated and disturbing the child’s life would have been if she/he had come into the world in this woman’s family. A final story is a 30ish woman in a successful marriage with 2 well-adjusted children who conceived and unplanned pregnancy with her husband. She described without emotion the decision that she would abort the child because that part of her life was closed and she had other goals at this point in her life. That is the one that haunts me the most.
16. Christopher
I know a close friend that had an abortion. It had a negative impact on what would have been the baby’s grandmother (and still is depending on how you look at it). This grandmother is still mourning the loss of the child just as deeply as she would if the child died at a young age after birth.
I do think that if one is making the choice to have an abortion they need to consider the impact to those around them, especially loved ones connected to the child. I don’t think ignoring that and thinking of themselves is pro-choice. It is pro-selfishness.
I am willing to bet that the majority of us our hybrids, not pro-choice or pro-life. It’s just like politics. We attempt to make things black and white but they rarely are anything but shades of grey.
I hope that one day we can get past the debate long enough to consider how we can prevent unplanned pregnancies from occuring, whatever methods that would take.
Christopher I: “Irrespective of whether the fetus is included in the definition of “others”, so many other people could also be impacted by the decision to abort from people that the unborn child would have affected to potential grandparents, etc.” Let’s be clear. There’s impacted and there’s would have impacted. We can’t take a “Minority Report” stance on what could have happened.
I have usually said I’m pro-choice prior to conception. Only if the woman had no access to choices (e.g. rape or incest) would abortion be an acceptable alternative, and I would certainly rather see morning after pills vs. abortions any day of the week. The problem is that the debaters of these questions are usually people like us who will never be in this position because we are educated, are largely in control of our lives and have resources available to us to handle unforeseen circumstances.
I agree with Jeff that this debate is too often divorced from the topic of child abuse and unfit parenting. Those are negative cycles that have to be addressed. Instead we continue to cut off avenues for dealing with these issues (e.g. restricting child abandonment laws–while child abandonment is horrible to contemplate, there are worse things!)
MAC asked whether this topic linkage was a red herring. I think the clearest link was the data presented in Freakonomics that linked the enormous drop in crime in urban cities in the US to the Roe v. Wade decision of the 1970s. The implication is that this is more than a statistical quirk, that the children who were not born as a result of legalized abortion were the same children who would have been raised by unfit parents without resources or education to handle being parents. I realize that Freakonomics is implying causation due to the correlation (perhaps not sound statistics), but it is an interesting question nonetheless.
#8–Ipso hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because “the abortion rate going down [while] the abuse rate [is] going up” does not mean causation or correlation. There are plenty of other factors you fail to consider.
It might have more to do with the changes in CPS (or whatever letters your state’s child protection services goes by) policy. Many child advocates say CPS is more concerned about keeping families intact than keeping children safe. There are also huge impediments (most of them created by CPS) to adopting children once they are in the foster care system.
We should also consider the anti-adoption movement that keeps unwanted babies from being adopted. The horror stories of adoptions that go bad get far more attention than do the success stories. The increasing pressure for open adoptions scares many away from the process. The anti-adoption activists have convinced many in social services that adoption is unethical and killing the baby is preferred to having it raised in an unethical adoption. I would guess that these policies and trends have have more to do with the increase in abused children than do abortion laws or trends.
I think it’s unfair to say those protesting abortion do not “care as much about the growing numbers of child mistreatment and fatalities.” Other than your statement in #8 (which is logically fallacious) there is nothing to support your assertion. Anecdotally, in my city, the most outspoken pro-life people also run one of the best support programs for single mothers I’ve every seen. They provide loving, practical, emotional and financial support to single mothers and do not receive one dime of public monies for their labors. They are supported 100% by they donations of committed pro-lifers. I’m confident that you can find hundreds of other facilities like The Perry Center around the nation.
You claim to take a more nuanced and thoughtful approach to the pro-life/pro-choice debate–good for you–but don’t revert to simple thinking by categorizing pro-lifers as anti-child and pro-abuse.
“baby leapt for joy” in mother’s womb Lk 1:41,44
Exodus 21:22-23:
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives (“no mischief follows”), then there’s no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: “thou shalt give life for life.” Why would God require the death penalty if He didn’t consider the unborn child to be a human being?
Mac – Can you defend the idea that those who protest abortion are less concerned or less involved in discouraging and preventing child abuse or neglect? Or are you arguing that an abused child would have been better off had they never been born at all?
There are four basic types of abortion being performed in America today.
First, there’s the suction type abortion. This is where the unborn child is literally vacuumed from the mother’s womb during the early stages of pregnancy.
The currette-type abortion is where the child is cut from the mother’s womb with a spoon-like object.
A third type is similar to a Caesarean operation. The baby is surgically removed from the mother and allowed to suffocate, because the child’s lungs aren’t developed.
The fourth type of abortion is the Salt Brine technique. With this method, the unborn child is literally “pickled” to death by the injection of a strong salt solution. A few days after the injection the child is still born.
There is currently much debate about partial-birth abortions. This is where a child is partially delivered, then stabbed in the skull to have his or her brains sucked out.
Abuse or neglect? No I just don’t want to have to cancel my vacation.
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
In what other area does that law protect independent decisions that have interdependent consequences? I can’t legally drive on the wrong side of the road, build a house without considering the impact on others, etc. Abortion isn’t a minor evil that is debated coolly by understanding intellectuals, it is a great evil that confirms that women have the same capacity for wickedness as men.
The ‘abused children’ argument also conflicts with the human power to choose to love, to sacrifice, to serve. In debates, I try to listen for ‘victim’ language. The victim paradigm is fundamental to the pro-choice argument. Victims only consider themselves and don’t take responsibility.
Also, the ‘I can’t understand because I am a man’ argument doesn’t hold water. Empathy doesn’t automatically provide wisdom. Should women not be allowed to protest the Catholic priest scandal because they are not men or boys?
Jeff,
I am under the impression (un defendable) that abuse isn’t necessarily on the rise, but the documenting and public awareness of abuse is increasing.
Hawkgrrrl,
I liked Freakonomics as much as the next person, but the conclusions it draws don’t really address the underlying questions. Now that we know that reducing birth rates amongst the most poorly-equipped, potential-parents in society is beneficial aren’t we responsible to act on that information?
Pardon me while I go a little Margaret Sanger hyperbolic, but arguing that abortion should be defended because it is disprortionately utilized by or encouraged for those who are judged to be risky parents? The next logical step is eugenics and sterilization for the riskiest groups, urban minorities and rural poor? Step 1, a national Prop 8 type referendum on social values. Step 2, a scoring system based on said values. Step 3, federally funded programs to encourage the right women to have more children and the wrong women to postpone or forego childbirth until they have improved their situation.
A little bit of careful planning and abortion could be the panacea for all sorts of social ills, racism, poverty, income inequality, the list goes on.
Unfortunately, it appears that we have fallen into the typical trap here. let me restate a few items;
1. I am, and most people are AGAINST abortions. I do not condone most uses of abortion in our society.
2. I am not in a position to restrict a woman’s choice to have an abortion, nor do I think the government should. It seems antithetical to the conservation position of less government intrusion.
3. While not a totally victimless act, it is not the same as a drunk driving killing people or someone shooting another with a gun.
4. The so-called pro-life side seems to resort to the horrors of the process rather than have a reasonable dialogue. (see #23 and 24). One even condones killing and bombing.
5. Whether abuse or reporting on abuse is on the rise is irrelevant. It is a scourge on society and the same effort and zeal that pro-lifers seem to apply to the abortion issue should be applied to stop it. These are real human beings, living on earth today and do not deserve the treatment they are receiving at the hands of those who should be protecting, nurturing and loving them. The fact that some ‘pro-life’ groups are doing that is commendable, but ALL should be as anxiously engaged and it should be highly visible.
6. People need to read what is written on the page, not what they think they see before they respond.
7. I knew this was a volatile issue when I wrote the post, but please try to be rational and not tell other people they are wrong because they hold an opposing view.
I am traveling this week internationally, so I may not respond as quickly as before.
Jeff,
What part of “thou shall not commit murder” do you not understand? I am shocked that anyone claiming to be a believer would allow the murder of innocent children.
Where do we draw the line? Murder is murder.
Joe P.
“What part of “thou shall not commit murder” Where might I find that quote? If you mean, “Thou shalt not kill” then you are right, it might apply in this case. However, like many commandments, it is between that person and God. You are NOT part of that judgment. Sorry to break that to you.
Equating abortion to murder is an over simplification of a complex problem. Nobody likes abortion. If you want to see fewer of them you should work harder to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
In the end I don’t know how you tell any woman she does not have the right to exercise decisions regarding her own body. You can consider the child living before birth, but the law should not give it rights that trump that of the mother. As sad as that decision may be, leave the judgment of it to God and not lawyers and politicians.
I was pro-choice for many years on the grounds of believing in agency. This means that I was against abortion personally but felt it wrong to infringe on someone else’s decision or agency. I’ve thought about this issue much over the years and my position has changed since then. I now disagree with the premise that it is a woman’s body and what she does with it is her right and perogative. I believe it is not in fact her body, but another being’s body inside her. The distinction here is key and I think many women would agree with the “inside-my-body” rather than “my body” premise. If one believes that the unborn child has a soul (I acknowledge that this is an issue of debate in itself) then the fetus has rights and liberty worth defending.
I invite criticism of this argument.
Nathan
“If one believes that the unborn child has a soul (I acknowledge that this is an issue of debate in itself)” For Mormons, this is highly debatable. We have additional scripture that would lead us to believe the spirit doesn’t enter the body until very near birth (Christ visits a prophet in the Americas to say he will be born the next day).
LDS Church’s General Handbook of Instructions states:
“The Church opposes abortion as one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. The only exceptions are the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy or the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. Even then, the woman should consider an abortion only after counseling with her husband and bishop or branch president, and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
Church discipline:
For more serious transgressions,
“…such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing,”
a disciplinary council may be convened. The council can decide to place the transgressor on formal probation, or disfellowship or excommunication.
Jeff
3. While not a totally victimless act, it is not the same as a drunk driving killing people or someone shooting another with a gun.
I get it where a child is partially delivered, then stabbed in the skull to have his or her brains sucked out. That is different DUI stabb in the head no DUI. I guess that would work with regular murder. Stabb in the head no crime. Jeff you are a funny guy.
The easy answer is abortion involves ending (terminating, killing, murdering, however you want to word it) an innocent life and therefore is wrong. But I look at the doctrine and position of the Church as showing the exact opposite. If it is truly as black and white as it seems to some, why would the Church even think to allow or consider it when rape, incest of the life of the mother are involved? Don’t even strong members of the Church have to be open to a gray interpretation?
#36 – It drives some people nuts when I say that I am (legally) pro-choice specifically because I am Mormon – since I can’t see any way to allow for the Church’s stated exceptions in any way other than to be pro-choice.
If you are interested, I wrote about this exact topic a while ago here on Mormon Matters:
When Moral Issues Become Political Issues
As some have said before I aggree 100% with you (see, it is not about being a woman or a man) but it is because I live in France. Here the law is the same all over the country: no abortion after three month because this is when the heart starts beating. I am fine with this definition of life: no heart beat no life. Unless we’re talking about special cases where health is involved of course.
Soe may disagree with me and I understand but to my point of view an embryo is not “a life” it is a potential of a life. And yes I agree that this is serious matter and I don’t mean to talk about it lightely but since everything I think about the subject has already been said…
I mean if an embryo is “a life” then I want to understand what makes it a life. TO ME (and once again I am fine if people stronlgy disagree with me) they are a bunch of cells that will become a life but that’s all. A group of cells carrying more hope than a cancer for sure! But still not a life yet to me.
Gwennaëlle,
Thank you. I think you make an execellent point. The potential of life. I always held to the concept that if the “life” cannot survive without assistance whether it is the mother’s womb or a machine, it was not much of a life. But, again, I can respect a reasonable argument that abortion is wrong. I just don’t know how much i thin the governement should be involved.
KingofTexas: you are a sick individual. Please get help.
Ray: I re-read your post. It is good and speaks to many of the same issues I discussed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Joe P.: Even though you want to consider it murder, abortion in any legal sense does not constitute murder in any jurisdiction. Please do not twist the words I have used. I do not condone abortion. We are only talking about legality.
Ricercar stated: “I have always been interested in the related theological concept of when the spirit enters: at conception or at birth. It is an interesting question to Mormons because Jesus appeared in the Americas in spirit form THE DAY BEFORE he was born.”
Basing your beliefs on made-up theology is very dangerous. Jesus DID NOT appear in the Americas in spirit form the day before He was born because the BoM is FICTION! When you’re dealing with life and death (abortion), putting your faith in JS, Jr and TSM is wrong. Wake up people!
Missionary Stu:
Thanks for your revelation! No one of us every heard that before. It’s always great to have folks like you around to set us straight.
Missionary Stu:
I’m trying to wake up…….still trying…………………………….still trying…
Ricercar/Hawkgrrrl:
Most parents, but especially mothers, will have a hard time believing that. Especially since, for example, my wife and I would go to the Temple during the pregnancy and every time we’d go through and sit in the celestial room the baby would start kicking and moving around wildly, sometimes she seemed to play rolling around in there. And, yes, this is only anecdotal, but I really have trouble seeing that it was just a nervous twitch or spasms of a fetus only. Maybe that scripture points to them coming and going until birth makes it permanent? (Just speculating though)
Ha ha Jeff. Your sarcasm is so refreshing! Why is the abortion issue an issue at all? Why don’t we err on the side of life? Once death enters the discussion, everything related to it is debatable. Socialist nations in Europe have to deny health care to the elderly because there is not enough money to help everyone. Other nations want to euthanize teens as young as 14 because of depression. Washington State wants physician-assisted suicide. Where does it end? Why are we so anxious to play God? BTW — the job is already taken and if there is ever an opening, I’m not interested. (The hours are lousy.)
Believing Christ visited the Americas in the spirit the day before He was born and entering that pap into the abortion discussion, as it relates to when the spirit enters the body, is just plain dangerous. Let’s just err on the side of life and let’s do all we are able to protect the weakest among us. The mark of a decent and a God-fearing society will do just that.
Missionary Stu: “Basing your beliefs on made-up theology is very dangerous. Jesus DID NOT appear in the Americas in spirit form the day before He was born because the BoM is FICTION!” I’m sorry, what is “non-made-up theology” exactly? All theology is made up, BTW.
CarlosJC: “Maybe that scripture points to them coming and going until birth makes it permanent? (Just speculating though)” That’s certainly a possible interpretation. My mother had a pregnancy-related spiritual experience very similar to Jesus’ spiritual visit to the Americas in the BOM, which is why this has always struck me. As a woman who has been pregnant, I always assumed the baby was “alive” but didn’t really have a spirit until at or near birth. It’s easy to cause the baby to move through simple acts like drinking orange juice, a physical reaction, not indicating conscious action on the part of the baby. Actually, I think it would be easier to make the case that a baby’s spirit doesn’t enter until after about 30 days post-birth since they mostly just lay around and poop during that first month. Boring!
44. hawkgrrrl
Made up theology is fine as long as it is based solely on someone’s intepretation of the Bible. Once you start introducing crazy ideas like modern-day revelation, restored scripture, etc. then it becomes a problem.
captainmelody – LOL, if I read you right!
hawkgrrrl stated: “All theology is made up, BTW.”
Really? If ALL theology is made up, then, according to your statement, to say, “God exists” is made up. Right? Is that what you are trying to say?
You can follow JS, Jr. and TSM if you want, but you are a fool if you do.
Stu: Disagreements are one thing; name calling is something totally different.
Let’s keep it civil, OK?
Psalm 14 Ray. (Verses 2-3 apply especially to JS, Jr.)
Just to clarify, all theology, whether Mormon or not is “made up” in that it is an interpretation made by human beings. There is no such thing on earth as a theology that is free from human interpretation. That’s all I meant. Theology can not be proven. Even the existence of God cannot be proven. You believe what you choose to believe based on your own experiences.
#45 – one of the most spot-on observations of our religious society anywhere – and much more concise than most.
Jeff,
Just to clarify… You think its okay for non-mormon’s to have a “choice”, but not okay for mormons to have the “choice”? The LDS stand on abortion is pretty cut and dry. Do you agree with the statement in the Handbook of Instructions? Is a non-member’s baby less valuable than a LDS member’s?
Its not a “choice” its a CHILD!
The LDS official statement is so good it is worth repeating.
LDS Church’s General Handbook of Instructions states:
“The Church opposes abortion as one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. The only exceptions are the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy or the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. Even then, the woman should consider an abortion only after counseling with her husband and bishop or branch president, and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
Hawkgrrl,
Again you are misled. Theology is not made up by man. It is delivered from God. It is found directly in the bible, and the spoken words of Jesus.
Also, it is easy to prove that God exists. A building has an architect, a painting has a painter, creation has a creator. No matter how many billions of years we wait a computer will not appear out of nothing. It requires a designer. A computer is dramatically more simple than God’s creation.
“Even the existence of God cannot be proven. You believe what you choose to believe based on your own experiences.”
hawkgrrl, Are you serious?! Either you are not paying attention or you are just patently dishonest. Go back to the LDS conference report for April 2008 and read Oakes. Apparently, a subjective, non-specific, personal, emotional, response to religious stimuli is all a person needs to PROVE what the PSR’s want you to believe.
Joe P: “Again you are misled. Theology is not made up by man. It is delivered from God. It is found directly in the bible, and the spoken words of Jesus.” That must be why there is no room for disagreement on what the Bible means or what the words of Jesus mean! Thanks for clearing that up. So, did God write it with His left hand or His right? I’m going to guess neither, that many, many human beings wrote it down. Did God dictate it? In what language? Or was it through “inspiration”? Were all the scriptoral authors equally inspired?
As to my being misled, no doubt. I’m sure we’re all misled to some extent, some more than others. The first step toward knowledge is acknowledging one’s own ignorance.
See Joe P.? When you question God’s omnipotence and allow “man” to creep in then, you need a man (JS, Jr. or TSM) to lead you around by the nose. God’s methods are flawed because man can screw up God’s plans so man must fix it. UNBELIEVABLE!
51. Joe P.
Why are there so many different religions, which all base their belief on the Bible, teaching different theologies?
#36–The Church Handbook is hardly a good place to go for doctrinal understanding. 25 yrs ago there were no exceptions to abortion in the CHI. 25yrs ago the CHI taught that all abortificants (the Pill, IUD, etc) were wrong. If that counsel indicates doctrine, obviously the doctrine has changed in the last 25 yrs? If it IS doctrine, why is it not taught in GC, SM and church manuals?
#38–if the heartbeat is the measure of life and when it should be protected, then the cut off would be about 8-9 wks, about 1-3 wks after the mother knows she’s pregnant. That is when the heart starts to beat.
#57 – Capt., I think you referenced the wrong comment number. *grin*
LDS folks,
Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant. The bible is not corrupted. To say so is ignorant of its careful preservation. In the bible’s orginal pen it was inspired by God. We have thousands of copies of the original manuscripts. Don’t you think people would notice if it were changed? What if someone changed a few paragraphs of Gone With the Wind? We obviously don’t have the original manuscript, but we could easily detect the changes. Correct?
Why should we have men interpret the bible for us? If we wanted that we could become any religion including Catholic, or Jehovahs Witness. Why not follow Christ instead of a church? Why let men interpret God’s Word for you? The bible should be read with an open mind, and an open heart and interpreted by the INDIVIDUAL.
To discount the accuracay of the bible “translation” and elevate the BOM is hypocritical. If the BOM is the most perfect book on earth which version is most perfect, the 1830 version or the current version?
56. Joe P.
I am trying to follow your logic. To understand anything we read, the Bible included, we must intepret it. Are you denying this?
The majority of Christians in the United States belong to a Church that puts forward their interpretation of the Bible and its teachings as being “most correct.” The Mormon Church is not alone in this practice.
Unless you are advocating that these Christians also leave their Churches and begin living the teachings of the Bible based on their singular interpretations your logic is fatally flawed.
56. Joe P
A side note: Jesus didn’t say or write anything in the Bible. Men recorded it from memory sometimes very long after.
It seems like you adhere to the fallacy that God delivered the Bible (New and Old Testament) to the world in a beautiful pink bow. I don’t want to insult your intelligence but anyone with 5 minutes to kill and the internet can see that the culimination of the scriptures was much sloppier and flawed than that.
And I would also add that any member of the LDS Church could tell you that they read the Bible and “IT” told them the LDS Church was true. Would you expect them to refute the Bible? How dare they? Are you willing to tell them that their “interpretation” is wrong and yours is correct? Is that not putting yourself above the Bible?
I would let Capt.’s comments stand in answer to Joe P.’s, but one part of #56 jumped out just begging for clarification.
“The bible is not corrupted … We have thousands of copies of the original manuscripts.”
Joe, do you really believe that we have thousands of copies of the original Biblical manuscripts? Seriously? Why do you think there are hundreds of translations of the Bible – and why do members of almost every Christian denomination sit side-by-side in the same congregations but using different translations? I’m truly sorry to be so blunt, but it is hard for me to fathom that you would think anyone knows what “the original manuscripts” said.
#47 Ray
“Stu: Disagreements are one thing; name calling is something totally different.
Let’s keep it civil, OK?” She is just disagreeing. Why threaten Stu this way? you do need an ‘opposition’ in all things, remember?
Joe P #56 “The bible is not corrupted…”
We don’t claim that. We only believe that a few versus aren’t translated accurately, as the many differences in the Gospels indicate. We only hold the king james version as roughly equal to the book of mormon, and vice versa; note that the catholic version is different and todays evangelical translation of the new testament is even more different. Plus the dead sea scrolls and other ‘discovered’ scrolls (book of Judas recently found) show that all bible translations aren’t equal
Joe P: “What if someone changed a few paragraphs of Gone With the Wind? We obviously don’t have the original manuscript, but we could easily detect the changes. Correct?” Excellent example! The scriptwriters of the movie Gone With the Wind in fact deliberatly chose NOT to read the book so that it would not corrupt their craft (you know these Hollywood types). Instead, they had a general sense of the story and wrote it from scratch. I wonder how many times that happened over the thousands of years of Bible history!
As to the BOM being the most correct” book, that quote doesn’t mean it is perfect. Far from it. It was still translated, abridged and compiled by the various “authors” before JS got to it, and his translation method was most peculiar. The book itself SAYS that it has flaws due to the weaknesses of men.
Captainmelody,
Have you ever been involved in a Christian church? You said, “The majority of Christians in the United States belong to a Church that puts forward their interpretation of the Bible and its teachings as being “most correct.” The Mormon Church is not alone in this practice.” I completely disagree with this statement. What authority does any church have in interpreting the bible. I say none, and every christian church I’ve attended does not say their teachings are “most correct”. Your LDS perspective is so twisted that you think all christian churches go around bashing one another… This isn’t true… The bible is the final authority, and any church saying otherwise is heretical.
Ray,
Yes… There are thousands of copies of the orginal manuscripts of the bible. Have you ever studied the lineage of the bible, or simply blindly belived that the bible is corrupted and can not be trusted (as stated by the LDS faith)?
Et. al.,
The different translations of the bible have minor variations in language, but no variation in overall meaning. Have any of you actually read the different versions of the bible, or compared them alongside one another? They all have the same message. How can you honestly claim the bible is corrupted because it isn’t translated correctly? Have you ever even begun to study the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?
63. Joe P.
I have worshiped at several different Christian Churches and they are just that – different. Each Church has specific teachings it draws from the Bible. Some of these teachings are only semantically different. But some of these teachings are in direct conflict with one another. Each Church or ministry received that teaching from the Bible, but each came away with a different interpretation. I am not saying that other Churches bash one another. I am saying that all Churches have “disagreements” in their interpretation of the Bible.
Have you been to a theology class, mate? If so, does the instructor hand you a Bible and say get to work? No, they hand you textbooks and you spend hours studying the writings of MEN interpreting the Bible.
By the way, it isn’t Mormonism that has twisted my mind. Christianity in general has made me a basket case, and I am glad to have stepped away from it.
Joe P. – “Have any of you actually read the different versions of the bible, or compared them alongside one another?” This is a definite threadjack, but suffice it to say that I have read and own various versions of the Bible and have studied the Bible and its history. “Have you ever been involved in a Christian church?” Yes, various Christian churches, including the Mormon church. If churches all agreed on their interpretations of the gospel and the Bible, there wouldn’t be different churches. Churches also agree on some things (frankly more than they disagree on), although that too varies from sect to sect.
Regardless, the topic was abortion IIRC.
Back to the original subject, I have always wanted to hear a member of the LDS Church speak that did get an abortion with the acceptance of Priesthood leadership. It would be fascinating and telling to hear their feelings on why they did it and why they felt it was acceptable. Maybe it would help us understand that gray area. I know it would be rude to ask that of anyone, and maybe even the desire is unkind (for which I sincerely apologize) but it is one side of the story that is rarely if ever heard.
For my friends that have had abortions it has never felt to me as murder. But I will never know if that is just me trying to look at my friends’ decisions in the most positive light, or those feelings are of the Spirit.
Joe, the post is about abortion, as Hawkgrrrl reminded us, so only one last comment:
Your question to me is ludicrous, as are your assumptions about Mormons. I generally try to be a calm voice when I blog, but I am going to be very direct and blunt in this comment.
1) Mormonism is Christain. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and teaches explicitly and continually of God, the Son. Assertions that we are not Christians are tiring and boring.
2) I’ve attended many services over the course of my life, both of Christian denominations and non-Christian religions.
3) I’ve studied world religions for decades – both formally and on my own – and Comparative Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. I’ve taken graduate courses from some of the most renowned Protestant and Catholic theologians in the world at the time. I mention that in context occasionally, but I don’t trumpet it. In this context, I’ll stack my religious education against yours in a heartbeat.
4) It is ridiculous to assert that we have thousands of the “original manuscripts of the Bible”. Frankly, it is beyond ridiculous. There is NO consensus within the broader Christian community as to the original content of the Bible; hence, the multitudinous translations all claiming to be better versions than the others. It simply isn’t worth spending time addressing, so I won’t do so here – especially in a thread about abortion.
5) Please discard your apparent assumption that all Mormons are ignorant, brainwashed rubes. It is wrong, arrogant, misguided and so transparent as to be comical.
Again, this is a post about abortion, so this is the last comment I will make about your threadjack.
Ray,
I never said we have thousands of the original manuscripts. I said we have thousands of “copies” of the orginal manuscripts. In fact there are over 5,700 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testement available. Source: Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testiment: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press), 288-290
The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the Book of Isaiah is accurate over 95% of the time with Maseoretic texts, with the only variations being minor grammatical differences. Source: Gleason Archer, A survey of Old Testament INtroductin (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), 29
Mormonism is not Christian. At some point you need to be honest and admit that. How can on one hand you claim that all Christian churches are false, then on the other hand claim yourself to be Christian. If someone asks your religion on the street do you say you are a Christian? I doubt it.
You can not claim to be Christian yet believe in ludicrous claims like Jesus is Spirit Brother of Satan, and Jesus and Satan once competed for the position as earth’s savior. I do hope someday your eyes will be opened and you will no longer be deceived by false prophets, and wolves in sheeps clothing.
I don’t care if this is a thread highjack. I must be given the opportunity to respond to your rediculous claims.
Joe P,
“How can you honestly claim the bible is corrupted because it isn’t translated correctly?….”
For the last time, we don’t claim that it is ‘corrupted’ at all.
Now isn’t God the Father the creator of all? then why isn’t he the Creator, or Father, of both Jesus and Satan and all of us? oh, because according to you God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the one same entity without form or shape….blah blah…
‘Mormonism’ doesn’t actually exist. We are actually the church that Jesus himself set up. (Now there’s something for you to go nuts over)
By the way, centuries from now when you are sitting at Jesus feet in the kingdom that doesn’t allow marriages or children or progress, seeing first hand Jesus’s power and glory, only then will you say “Oh, I wish I could be like Him” but by that it will be too late, Jesus will already have those who will be like Him -and they are all those Mormons who had to put up with your insults and false accusations today!!!
You see the difference between the Christians like you and the Christians like us is that we actually want to be like Jesus in every sense while you only want to see Him and be saved by Him. That’s why we put up with you here. (by the way, yes, Mary Magdalene….etc etc you see I can see your questions
)
“I must be given the opportunity to respond to your rediculous claims” And you do get your chance here, freely and fairly.
Joe P.-
Mormons believe that God is NOT omnipotent. They teach that He is only able to re-organize matter. He cannot create in the way the Bible teaches. When a person (or church) is able to reduce God in this way, then they easily believe that the will of “corrupt” scribes IS STRONGER THAN God’s ability to exert His will by using man a conduit. Give me a break.
I believe God is omnipotent and He is able to preserve His Word in spite of whomever He chooses to touch the printed page. The BoM itself proves my point. 1 Ne 14 “Nephi” is visited by an “angel” and shown the end of the times. He was told not to write what he had seen because John would come later and write the book of “Revelation”. (John is mentioned by name BTW.)
Anyone see a problem yet? If God is not powerful enough to preserve His Word and needs the BoM to set things straight, then why was “Nephi” forbidden from making a safety copy of the book of Revelation? And to top if off, JS, Jr. comes along and “translates” the book of Revelation against John’s warning not to. Wow! You TBMs keep following those PSRs! They’ll NEVER steer you wrong.
And this is the one true church? Not so much.
Anon,
The trouble I have is Mormons not only want to be “like Jesus” they want to be “Jesus”. The devaluation of God to Manhood and elevation of Man to Godhood is heresy.
Jesus did not set up the Mormon Church. How could he? Your Jesus is not the same person as the Jesus of the bible, no matter what name you call him.
Guys…this post is about abortion. Instead of being disrespectful of others’ beliefs can you post something constructive on abortion?
Since Joe P. is well versed in the Bible I would be interested in the scriptures he would cite which shows that the Bible openly condems abortion (possibly in all circumstances).
Here’s something constructive about abortion: Thou shalt not kill or do ANYTHING LIKE UNTO IT.
I’m sure the Biblical Jesus and the Mormon Jesus can agree on that. Let us follow.
74. Missionary Stu
I am curious…do you support the death penalty?
74. Missionary Stu
Another question…
Do you feel that the Bible has revealed when a fertilized egg becomes an actual life? If this fertilized egg is terminated before it is considered life would it still be classified as killing?
captainmelody – I support harsh deterrents. I support cruel punishment. I support unusual punishment. I do not support cruel AND unusual punishment. I do not support the death penalty.
On #80: What part of “ANYTHING LIKE UNTO IT” don’t you understand? That IS the definition. YOU used the word “termination”. What are you terminating? And don’t stop at the term “a pregnancy”, because each pregnancy has an outcome. What is that outcome? A life (potentially – nothing is guaranteed, except “Termination”). “Termination” suggests a stoppage, a final state, an end to life…doesn’t it?
Is a human sperm a “living” entity? A sperm definitely exhibits many characteristics of “life”. When joined with a female human egg it has “life” (or the potential for such).
But let me ask you this: When you meet God do you really want to take your chances in your ability to split hairs? Do you want God to judge you as “finely” as you are judging what constitutes a “life”? Or would you rather just replace God and play His role for yourself?
I’ve said it before, let’s err on the side of life (and its potential) and let’s live up to the ideal of protecting the weakest among us, instead of finding excuses for becoming a culture of death.
77. Missionary Stu
Could you please at least try to be respectful? I do not think I have said (or typed) anything that warrants your condescening remarks. I am sincerely trying to respond to your comments on abortion with follow-up questions.
I do not ascribe 100% to Mormon theology, although I have gleaned several truths from it. You cannot assume that my views are always consistent with the LDS Church because in many cases they are not. Even TBMs will differ from common
While the Bible does contain the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” there are also several instances in which the Lord commanded His people to kill thousands of men, women and children. In many cases the Israelites were given permission (if not commanded) to kill and conquer other nations. I make this point to illustrate that for every commandment that God gives He has given contradicting instruction throughout the Bible.
The difference that I see in these commandments are context. I contend that in the context of abortion the Bible does not give us enough instruction to warrant a hands down approach that abortion is wrong in all cases. If you simply rely on the commandments given to the Israelites in the Old Testament I think you are stretching the context of the commandment. Obviously, that is just my opinion and I am open to disagreement.
If God wants to judge me without mercy for those parts of His teachings that I have sincere questions about, so be it. I do not fear the judgements of God and believe that if there is a God He is more merciful than most give Him credit for. If this condemns me to hell then all I can do is make the most of my eternal damnation
*Even TBMs will differ from commonly held views in the LDS Church.
(forgot to finish sentence)
So let me see if I understand: according to You, since God allowed His people to kill other people, then it’s OK for us to “Terminate” the unborn?
…AND you do not fear the judgment of God?
All I can say is, “Wow!” Do you not know all the scriptures referencing the state of those who fear God?
Well you go kill your embryos, fetuses, whatever you want to call them to help you feel better about your support for the culture of death.
80. Missionary Stu
Stu, my point is that I don’t think the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is as black and white as you claim. I am using God’s command to the Israelites to destroy other nations as an example of a grey area. You use the commandment as a “be all, end all” statement which I disagree with. In certain cases even God is “okay” with killing – he is even okay with killing children!
I personally would never want a woman I conceived a child with to have an abortion. I would do all in my power to prevent that from happening. However, I do enjoy intelligent conversation where the parties involved respect eachother and try to see things from the others’ point of view, something I get the feeling you have trouble with.
No, I do not fear the judgments of God. And like I said, if He wants to punish me for that He can. I will make the most of my damnation.
I’m OK with You making Your point that “Thou shalt not kill” may not be black and white, but You cannot go any further than that. To do so, suggests that You know the mind and will of God. You don’t know how the gray area is defined, yet You write as if You speak for God.
How can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who claims to know the mind and will of God? And You are arrogant enough to suggest that You speak for God when You say God is okay with killing children.
I DO have a problem with a “point-of-view” that wants death over life. We are talking about babies, children, not “points-of-view”. Wise up.
CaptainMelody,
Abortion is Murder of innocent children. I believe God commanded us not to Murder. Its really that simple. No debate for me.
When I look into the eyes of my son I know he was once an embryo. He was once sperm and egg. He is my miracle that God stitched together in my wife’s womb. The thought of killing him (or any other baby) at any stage is extremely troubling to me. Especially considering it took me and my wife 8 years of trying before God gave us our baby.
We tried adoption also, and the adoption process (including LDS family services) makes it very difficult for loving parents to adopt a child. Adoption is the answer, not abortion.
I have a GREAT deal of respect for women that give their babies up for adoption. There are many couples looking to adopt and there is no reason for abortion when in America we have thousands of families waiting to take care of adopted babies.
How did I ever suggest that I speak or know the mind and will of God? I would never even think to make such a claim. I am only recounting information from the Bible.
The accounts of the Israelites being commanded to destroy other nations including women and children seem to indicate that God was okay or at least accepting at that time with the killing of children. This was after the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”
My comments are rebuttals to the statement that the scripture “Thou shalt not kill” is God’s end all, be all statement on abortion. Nothing more, nothing less. If I were to use this statement as you have for abortion I would be condemning God for commanding the destruction of women and children at the hands of His people, the Israelites.
If anyone is guilty of being arrogant or pretending to speak for God on this thread it would most certainly be yourself. I think you need a dose of humility my friend.
Why would God command the Israelites to break His own commandment and kill the women and children of other nations?
83. Joe P
From your comment I assume that you are of the opinion that abortion is wrong even when a woman has been raped, involved in incest or her life is in jeapordy?
What are your feelings on the emotional trauma that a women faces when having to carry a child that was a result of rape? Do you feel that the sacrifice of her sanity is acceptable? I am not speaking of a strong woman who can withstand the trauma. I am speaking of a woman in which carrying the child would cause her severe mental and emotional torment the rest of her life.
Captainmelody…
God has given us life. He is so HOLY his ways are not our ways. If he tell us that we shall not murder… We had better not. If he tells his people to destroy those who are evil, they had better obey him. None of us are righteous so every good thing we get is a blessing from God. Our evil practices mean that we deserve nothing (including life) but we are given much.
On another subject… LDS theology says the spirit enters the body at birth. How could you explain that my son knew my voice when he was born. I told him every night (while he was in his momma’s tummy) “Your a good boy. We love our little man.” When he was first born he obviously recognized my voice and I was the only one that could calm him with those exact words. It makes no sense to me that his spirit wasn’t present upon conception.
86. Joe P
Where did you learn of this belief in LDS theology? I’ve been studying LDS theology for a long time and I have never heard this belief expressed in an official capacity.
Anon said: Now isn’t God the Father the creator of all? then why isn’t he the Creator, or Father, of both Jesus and Satan and all of us? oh, because according to you God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the one same entity without form or shape….blah blah…
Actually, according to my understanding, LDS theology teaches that Jesus created the earth. You might want to read up on that.
Genesis 1:1 – IN THE BEGINNING God created the HEAVEN AND THE EARTH.
John 1:1 – IN THE BEGINNING was the Word and the Word was with God and the WORD WAS GOD.
John 1:14 – And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Whenever the beginning was… When everything, including heaven and earth, was created Jesus was already there. Jesus and God are both everlasting and unchanging FOR ETERNITY. However this contradicts LDS theology. When the bible contradicts the prophets (or your theology) who do you follow? I choose to follow the bible.
I’m going to be overly blunt, and I hope I don’t offend you… Your “blah blah” could be the deciding factor for your place in eternity. If I’m wrong I get the Tellestial Kingdom. If you are wrong I fear your fate is hell (yet hope I’m wrong).
That blah blah blah could mean the differnce between heavan and hell.
Captain – Do You remember writing this: “In certain cases even God is ‘okay’ with killing – he is even okay with killing children!”
How do You KNOW what God is OK with? I never see You at the meetings. So how do You know?
You are so morally bankrupt that continuing this would be pointless. Good luck at the Judgment convincing God abortion is part of His work and His glory.
Here’s he dirty little secret: According to JS, Jr. and PSRs since, we have always existed as intelligences, then spirits in the pre-mortal world waiting to gain a body. To a member of the LDS church, abortion should be beyond heinous.
To abort a baby is denying (or at least delaying) a person who has always existed (or is living) a chance to gain a physical body. So in a way, abortion reaches beyond this world and into the pre-mortal world.
Holy cow. I have to go duct tape my head back together.
90. Missionary Stu
I thought I had already made it clear that I do not support abortion? You never answered my question. I am guessing its because you don’t have a good answer and its easier to resort to name calling.
Joe P.
When the Bible conflicts with LDS doctrine, see the JST. You quoted John 1:1, 14, but JS rewrote those scriptures so the LDS church may have their own “inspired” version of the scriptures. Nice.
Other scriptures exist that support the original version of John 1. (I’m sure you know the references.) JS was a fraud and it’s too bad there are so may who are gullible enough to believe a man over God.
92. Missionary Stu
Why do you participate on this blog? Is it just to criticize others? Or is there a small feeling deep in the back of your heart that knows the LDS Church is true and you just can’t avoid it? Someone cannot have as much venom as you have and not have some type of emotional attachment.
Who wants to place a bet on Missionary Stu being a closet Mormon? I’ve got 20 bucks that says he will convert before summer. Going once…twice…
Captain #95 – I’ll answer your question this way: When God decides to declare a commandment to perform abortions, then we are free to obey.
Captain #97 – I’m member in good standing. I’ve been a member since birth. (You’re familiar with birth – it’s the process that occurs when an abortion is NOT performed.)
94. Missionary Stu
He can no longer declare anything because you have stuffed Him into a book. You accuse Mormons of giving God human-like qualities, yet you have turned Him into a piece of literature. Your God is not omnipotent. He is bound by your foolish traditions, interpretations and creeds that you try to pass off as divine. They are no more divine than a Calvin and Hobbes comic book. You worship the Bible, not God.
I think you will be surprised when you have to face God at Judgment and he is not the leather bound mistranslated garbage that you currently worship.
95. Missionary Stu
A member of what?
And you’ll be surprised to find out that JS is burning hell for lying about seeing God, the people he led down there with him, the housemaid he boinked which caused him to use polygamy to get Emma off his scent, and the set of metal plates he and his dad made in their shed.
Captain Melody here is the LDS statement regarding when the spirit enters the body (as stated before I disagree with this posibility): “When does the spirit enter the body–at conception or at the first breath of life?” Undoubtedly the nearest approach we have to definite knowledge on this subject is the statement made by the Savior, 3 Nephi 1:13, wherein He said, “Tomorrow come I into the world.” This indicates that the spirit takes possession of the body at birth. Life manifest in the body before that time would seem to be dependent upon the mother. David O. McKay to Tiena Nate, Oct. 31, 1934
Regarding pregnancy as a result of rape. IMHO. Murdering a child will create much more emotional torment on the woman than properly raising the child or lovingly giving it up for adoption.
Captain #100 “He can no longer declare anything because you have stuffed Him into a book.”
So I guess that means we WON’T be receiving the abortion commandment? So I guess we can stop arguing.
“So I guess we can stop arguing.”
Please.
Captain Melody: “He can no longer declare anything because you have stuffed Him into a book.”
Much from the truth! God has already declared all I need thru Jesus (a big part of his declaration are in Gods Word)! Jesus lives! I worship and follow Jesus. Am I perfect in doing so? Far from it, but he is my everything.
103. Joe P
I appreciate your words, Joe. You at least sound sincere.
The quote you present is very interesting. I knew that some members of the LDS Church believed this, but I had never read a quote from an actual Church leader stating it. As you probably know, a quote from an LDS Church leader is not considered doctrine in the LDS Church. Several Church leaders have made speculative comments that have not been in harmony with accepted teachings. As far as I know, this teaching is not considered doctrine only speculation.
Personally, I don’t agree with the quote. I believe there has been too much research indicating that what a child is exposed to in the womb does have an affect on them post-birth. But I don’t feel I know enough about it to really have an educated opinion.
Joe P: Yes, Jesus created our current physical world but under God the Father’s direction. But only God the Father created us, his spirit children, and I’m sure even you know that Satan is a spirit. Missionary Stu’s use of TBM points to him/her being an ex-mormon.
But back to the subject matter here. What does the bible teach about abortion?
1- Genesis 2:7 “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”. So life actually starts when the baby ‘breaths’. Since fetuses don’t breath at all, even in Joe P’s world, that fetus, nor the sperm, is not a “living” being as yet. All abortion does is stop a life from happening and because of that it is still a serious sin.
2- The biblical punishment for causing an abortion is another indication of the fact that in the old testament they did not consider a fetus a human, since the punishment for murder was death (as it was for adultery or homosexuality or bestiality) but the punishment for abortion or the ‘causing’ of a mother to lose her fetus, without further damage to the mother, was only monetary compensation to the husband of that mother (Exodus 21:22-25)
But the problem is with the mindset of evangelical extremists like Joe P here who read all sorts of weired and wonderful things into scripture, like claiming that Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” shows that God is talking about the fetus when in actual fact He is talking about ‘before you even were in the belly’ which points to a pre-existence or life previous to conception, maybe when we saw that angle and one third of heavens host expelled from God’s presence as mentioned in Revelations.
But I don’t think, or know of, the Book of Mormon dealing with abortion. Interesting that it doesn’t.
I prefer the term Jesus Freak over Extremist..
Its important to note that I DO AGREE with the LDS stand against abortion. So, lets do as Mr. Hinkley said, find our common ground on this issue…
Regarding Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”. I never would say God is talking to a fetus. He is saying he knows everything, including who will be born and what they will do, etc… No talk of pre-existance in that verse.
Regarding Exodus 21:22-25… We’ve come full circle again to the importance of studying the original Hebrew of the Bible. This actually proves that we must study different translations to ensure that the original meaning of the text is not distorted. Why only use the KJV, and assume it is only correct in that it “translated correctly”, when in fact we can go to the original Hebrew and analyze what it says.
Please refer to the following on Exodus: 22-25 from John Piper:
Sometimes Exodus 21:22-25 is used by pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible does not regard the unborn as persons just as worthy of protection as an adult. Some translations do in fact make this a plausible opinion. But I want to try to show that the opposite is the case. The text really supports the worth and rights of the unborn.
This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarreling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace. She is struck, and the blow results in a miscarriage or pre-mature birth. Pro-choice reasoning assumes that a miscarriage occurs. But this is not likely.
The RSV is one translation that supports the pro-choice conclusion. It says,
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The RSV assumes that a “miscarriage” happens, and the foetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no “harm,” because it says, “If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows . . .” It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as “harm” which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc.
This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if “harm follows” (to the woman!) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc.
But is this the right translation? The NIV does not assume that a miscarriage happened. The NIV translates the text like this:
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .
What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc.
I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew:
And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman (‘ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse’u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The key phrase is “and the children go forth.” The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?
In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:
1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, “None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land.” But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.
2. Rather the word for birth here is “go forth” (ytsa’). “And if her children go forth . . .” This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children “going forth” or “coming out” from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, “And the first came out (wyetse’) red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau.” (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)
So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.
3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Is. 33:3). But these words are not used here.
4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. “Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form” (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).
5. Verse 22 says, “[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . .” It does not say, “[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . .” (NASB). The word “further is NOT in the original text.
The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman (“If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . .”). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.
Likewise in verse 23 when it says, “But if there was injury . . .” it does not say “to the woman,” as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”
Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say,
If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . .
George Bush (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said,
If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect
The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother.
Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.
. Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135) suggest that the reason for the plural in Hebrew is “for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one child in the womb.”
. Besides those quoted I would mention Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” Christianity Today 17, 12 (March 16, 1973): 6-9; Wayne H. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 108-123; Bernard S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exodus 21:22-25 (Ius Talionis),” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 273-304
Anon said: “Joe P: Yes, Jesus created our current physical world but under God the Father’s direction. But only God the Father created us, his spirit children, and I’m sure even you know that Satan is a spirit. Missionary Stu’s use of TBM points to him/her being an ex-mormon.”
But wait… The beginning of the book of John says the following, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
All things were made when Jesus was there! How can you deny this. What part of “all” do you not understand. “All” includes you, “all” includes me. Without Jesus “was not anything made that was made”!
Please open your eyes. Remove the scales… Can’t you see Jesus was with God in the beginning before the heavens and earth and ALL THINGS were created. This is extremely important! Jesus is eternally God, just like the Father.
Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD,
EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace.”
Anon,
I must add who Satan is… He is a fallen angel that formerly led worship in Heaven. His sin was he wanted people to worship him. He wanted to be “like God”, or “a God”. This is the same underlying sin of Mormonism. Some day Mormon men stive to become God. Why is this not the same heresy that Satan was cast out of heaven for? I truly do not understand.
Anon and Joe P.
Now this is the kind of dialogue I am talking about! Both of you have given me loads to research. Thank you!
Goodness Joe! (sorry, Gosh Joe P)
A few comments back you were arguing that the bible has no problems with different translations but now you can pick and chose which translation you prefer?
I see there is no use in trying to explain things here since you part from the view that anything a mormon believes is heresy. But I’ll argue a few points anyway
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”. He is saying he knows everything” Nope, he is saying that he knew the guy before the guy was a fetus. Only a preexistence can fit here. Plus, your own definition of Satan points to an existence before mortal life. Plus Job 38:7 ’sons of God shouted for joy’..etc But you can believe what you want to, I’m not forcing you to change here.
“Please open your eyes. Remove the scales…” Yeap, done that. Now ‘In the beginning’ means when God created man…ie in the beginning. Then ‘in the beginning’ there was another person who wasn’t God but ‘the verb’ who was like God and was [A] God. And because he created everything here, ie everything mortal being earth, plants, animals, man’s bodies or their DNA..he is the Father of this world and ‘Father’ is then one of his titles, as is King of Kings….etc etc. See I only see this after I remove those awful scales from my eyes!! Plus since we agree that the verb was Jesus will you start to now call us ‘Christians’? …please????
And about Satan, well no, there’s a right way and a wrong way. If you think you can never reach that level fine, but Jesus did say that ‘all that the father has’ will be given to the faithful like “inherit the Kingdom of God”, if we are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” wouldn’t we actually be “heirs” as a prince who is a “heir” to become King? or if we “receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away”? ring any bells? they are all from the New Testament but then if you know the sacred book you can find them and explain them away in that extreemists evangelical way….. oops sorry, typo, I meant ‘Jesus Freak’
Anon,
My point with the “translations” is it is very important to go the original language when questions arise. I read and examine all translations whenever possible (such as when a question arises). If I could read Greek and Hebrew I would. Unfortunately I am limited to looking at individual words of Greek and Hebrew, and when there is a question the original language trumps all.
Your pre-existance ideas are flawed. Satan is an angel, a fallen angel. There is a difference between angels/demons and people, they are not one in the same.
Does the bible say God created everything “here”. No.. it says God created “all things”, including heaven and earth. So if there was no heaven at the time of creation where were all these other Gods? Do they live in different heavens? Does each God have his eternal family on seperate planets, yet “families are forever”. If both sides of the family are LDS which family is “forever”? If Mormon men strive to become God and be worshipped. Do their sons and daughters worship them? Do other Gods worship each other? I could go on an on… When you have heresy it opens up all kinds of problems that can not be resolved by your theology.
No.. I will not call you Christian until you abandon the multiple Gods heresy, and admit that Jesus is eternally God (just like the Father). Sorry, but no Christian accepts Mormonism as “Christian”.
11. Joe
Isn’t the most commonly accepted understanding among both religious teachers and scholars that the heavens referred to in Genesis 1 and 2 is the earth’s ecosystem or atmosphere?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/heaven.html
The usual Hebrew word for “heavens” is shamayim, a plural form meaning “heights,” “elevations” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1).
I think this interpretation is further confirmed by the following verses -
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And to add…
God existed somewhere, in some realm prior to creating the heavens and earth spoke of in Genesis. I thought it was understood among most Christians that the place or realm God existed prior to the creation of the heavens and earth would be the actual heaven you are speaking of.
Joe P. – worship me! I command you!
#11 – “I could go on an on …”
There are lots of sites where that would be appropriate.
Joe,
The more I think about it the more this challenge comes to mind -
Mormons can answer your question concerning where the other Gods are if you can tell them the location of God prior to the earth’s creation.
…unless you believe that God created Himself out of nothing right before the creation of the earth.
Ok, we are done here. Way off track.