As members of the Church we are taught that abortion is inexcusable unless it is to save the life of the mother, the child is medically certified as not capable of life outside the womb, or the woman is a victim of rape or incest. Even in those conditions the counsel is that such a decision should be coupled with fasting and prayer.
So does that make us pro-choice? And along with that, would we prefer that Roe v Wade be completely overturned (ie. all abortions are illegal) or would we want a tightly regulated (and legal) abortion procedure where only the exceptions are allowed, not abortion on demand? Thoughts please.
(I bring up this argument as a potential case that could be used against Mitt Romney, where conservatives such as Senator Brownback could label him as pro-abortion.)
I don't think it is accurate to lump members of the church in either political camp's body of thought.
I think we are taught the principle that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. And that is it. We as a church and as members thereof in general do not take a stance beyond that. For individuals who want to show they are more anti-abortion than others, then of course they will say that anyone who is not for overthrowing all laws allowing all abortions (regardless of the reason) is pro-abortion. That is a red herring that both sides throw out... and it is really stupid for people to buy into it because it is only a thinly vieled acusation of either you with us or against us.
The thing that I think should be asked of these ultra "conservatives" who say everything about it should be made illegal is would they also make it illegal then for a doctor to perform the same procedure on a woman who has miscarried?
Don't get me wrong, I believe that abortion is wrong, but there needs to be some common sense applied in the laws to stop having it as a form of birth control.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
There's some truth to what you say, freggy. The church is more moderate than say, the Cattholic church, which is against all forms of abortion--hard and fast. The reason is that we believe in modern revelation, and are open to the possibility that after prayer and thoughtful consideration, that such a choice may be within the realm of choices available.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Ah, now that isn't fair Bok... share some of the insight you gleaned from the book.
Otherwise, the ultra succinctness of the post just sounds like the commercials for those things like weight loss pills or... ahem... "male enhancement"...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
The terms pro-choice and pro-life do a deservice to the issue IMO. I'm pro-choice in that I think there are plenty of choices prior to conception - where the choices get quite limited is when "the deed" has been chosen and the "oops" has happened. I'm pro-life in that sometimes a choice can be made that favors one life over none. I know that is not the way the terms are meant but I have just never liked them as they so inaccurately describe a person's true position.
I thought the Nazis proved a while ago that Abortion is a great solution to poverty and a great instrument of social engineering... However that doesn't make me a fan.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
To answer this we really need to define "pro-life and pro-choice." Politicians have created phrases and given them new meanings. As is so often the case in this silly world, they have drawn a line and attemped to categorize all feelings into black or white. When, let's face it, it's all shade's of grey. Even Nephi shows us that right before he dresses up in Labans clothes.
Are 'we' (Mormons?) pro-choice? The whole agency thing would shout Yes! Do we think we should all have the choice to make our own choice? Yup. But that is not the politcal definition of the phrase. That would go something like "Do we believe that the decision to abort unborn babies should be left to irresponsible and selfish people who are merely attempting to skirt around the consequenses of thier thoughtless actions?" Um...no. "Should we stand idly by watch?" no.
Are we pro-life? Of course! But that's not the polital definition. That definition doesn't allow for any consideration. There exist serious and harsh circumstances that bring us to hard decisons. Is letting a mother die so the baby can live pro-life? Or a wash? Is forcing a young girl who has been violated in a most serious way to carry and deliver a baby promoting life? It's wonderful when that girl can recieve comfort, carry on and provide another family with a much wanted baby, but it's not my place or yours to tell her she has to.
It all comes down to God's will, personal revelation and the Prophet trying to make a blanket, political statement that correctly applies to millions of people.
Oy.
__________________
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
I used to object to it because it deprived an unborn child of life. Now I'm not so sure. We don't know enough about premortal life and the transition to mortality to say when an individual spirit is permanently housed in a body of flesh. It seems reasonably possible, especially for first and early second term abortions, that the spirit that was to inhabit that body would simply be reassigned to another one. But even if that fetus was that spirit's only chance at a body, how is that spirit's state any different than one who is stillborn? Some believe that stillborn babies are guaranteed celestial glory; others believe they will be raised in the Millenium. Either way, wouldn't the same apply to an aborted child? What's bad about that?
I am fully confident that God has a place for aborted babies in his merciful plan.
In short, I wonder if the worst thing about abortion is not what happens to the baby, but rather the devastating spiritual consequences for the mother and everyone else involved in the procedure.
But applying your logic, you could nuke whole nations that have never heard the Gospel, and do their temple work, rather than risk them giving up their innocence...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Everyone is pro choice. Pro life means they are choosing life and the so called "pro choice" crowd is saying they choose death. Pro Death doesn't sound really good on the evening news. Can you imagine the following:
"This is Diane Sawyer live from Washington DC where the Pro Death activists are staging a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court building in support of death for unborn babies."
Sounds rediculous right? So the adversary in all his cunning and guile convinces the Pro Death supporters that they are really all about choices when the Adversary himself convinced 1/3 of the host of heaven that we should have no choice. So he cloaks his evil designs behind a false statement of trying to support free agency and puts it in a neat little package. How convenient, isn't it.
Also, isn't it convenient how many of the same people who are against the death penalty are also in the Pro Death crowd. A horrible serial killer should live but an innocent baby should be killed. Some in the Pro Death crowd even support infanticide without criminal consequences up to a certain age of the baby.
So abortion leads to lower poverty and less crime which is more convenient for the rest of us. Why not start killing the elderly. Then we would have even less poverty and fewer crimes against the elderly. Next lets get rid of the mentally ill and handicapped, also a major group that suffers as victims of crime and puts a burden on the system. Since African Americans account for the largest number of crimes per capita of any race, why don't we just force sterilization and abortions on them. That will lower crime and poverty even more. Oh wait, that's already been tried, the mastermind behind that one wrote about it in his book Mien Kampf.
But applying your logic, you could nuke whole nations that have never heard the Gospel, and do their temple work, rather than risk them giving up their innocence...
--Ray
I'm not advocating nuking nations or killing unborn babies. I'm saying that the person most harmed is the one doing the killing. There are much worse things than the death of the body.
Don't mistake my previous statements as statements in favor of abortion. I think it is a grievous gaping slash wound on the face of modern society. But I no longer feel indignant for the babies' sake. Rather, I mourn for their mothers.
I undertand the idea that the ones doing the aborting will face consequenses while the ones being aborted will be taken care of. But what is your purpose in making that statement?
Is it that we shouldn't regulate or attempt to stop abortion because the only one being hurt is the one making the choice--aka, using agency, and that is thier God given right? I don't know. Just trying to get your jist.
As far as this goes: "We don't know enough about premortal life and the transition to mortality to say when an individual spirit is permanently housed in a body of flesh.--
We do know that John leaped in Sarah's womb when Mary entered, that he recognized Jesus. What think ye?
__________________
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
Is it that we shouldn't regulate or attempt to stop abortion because the only one being hurt is the one making the choice--aka, using agency, and that is thier God given right? I don't know. Just trying to get your jist.
Hmmm... I guess I am just thinking out loud about why the whole abortion issue doesn't enflame me anymore. I don't feel that I have any personal power to change the laws of the land. Sure, I can vote, but beyond that, what can I do? I doubt that Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned. I decided that the best way I can fight it is to bring up my children to value life, children, and family. So I focus on that, rather than the rhetoric and vitriolic debate that rages on in the media.
As far as this goes: "We don't know enough about premortal life and the transition to mortality to say when an individual spirit is permanently housed in a body of flesh.--
We do know that John leaped in Sarah's womb when Mary entered, that he recognized Jesus. What think ye?
I don't see how that scriptural account tells us anything about how permanent John's claim on that body was. I have personal evidence that spirits do not always remain inside their developing bodies, especially early in the pregnancy. My point is that we don't know much, and trying to string together snippets of scripture to find the answers inherent in the abortion debate is, imo, impossible.
Frankly, the fact that LDS prophets have made exceptions for situations where abortion is allowed indicates to me that it may not be so cut and dried as we want to believe. The r~pe example was mentioned earlier. No matter how the child was conceived, it doesn't deserve to die, right? And yet the Church allows it, for the sake of the mother. It seems to me that if that were the child's only chance at mortality and exaltation, then abortion wouldn't be justified under any circumstance. But I'm just speculating. And I'm out of time at present, so I'll have to add more thoughts later, if I have any.
Until we have a legal determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, I don't think we can make any more progress on the abortion issue. Furthermore, I think the government should stop trying to regulate any considerations relating to abortion (for or against--both are unconstitutional at this point) until that determination is made.
Once we have a determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, the government has the constitutional duty to protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Roper wrote: Until we have a legal determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, I don't think we can make any more progress on the abortion issue. Furthermore, I think the government should stop trying to regulate any considerations relating to abortion (for or against--both are unconstitutional at this point) until that determination is made.
Once we have a determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, the government has the constitutional duty to protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process.
Interesting.... It probably would be better to error on the side of caution until the determination is made.
Roper wrote: Until we have a legal determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, I don't think we can make any more progress on the abortion issue. Furthermore, I think the government should stop trying to regulate any considerations relating to abortion (for or against--both are unconstitutional at this point) until that determination is made.
Once we have a determination of when life (and therefore citizenship) begins, the government has the constitutional duty to protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process.
I don't believe a legal determination of when life begins will be (or can be) made, and if it is, then it will be challenged by which ever side loses that battle. It is not really a social development that would inspire a lot of hope in our future as a society and culture, as the lowest common denominator would be what is listed towards defining it by law.
And, from a governmental standpoint, the government (federal, state, and local) already plays both sides of the field with this. They play the side of "Family Planning" as well as the side of stuff like WIC and having laws making penalties for crimes commited against women who are pregnant higher and stiffer. Make a legal determination, and it automatically throws this dichotomy into chaos.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Howard Phillips (Constitution Party) articulated a position which most nearly matches my own beliefs: (Paraphrasing here.) From conception, a life is formed that any DNA analysis would attest is human and unique. The government certainly has no right to decide to end that life. Neither does the mother--she contributed only half of the genetic makeup, and from the time the first cell divides, the identity is unique.
In addition to my own religious convictions, I think we have the science to abolutely support the affirmation that life begins at conception. Based on that science, I believe we can and should establish legal citizenship at the time pregnancy is first realized (I know this has some issues, but I'm confident those could be resolved.) That would make abortion unconstitutional and legally definable as murder, as it ought to be.
I'm still not sure where I stand on the exceptions, like rape. Despite the church's allowance in those circumstances, my conviction at this point is that the life of an innocent unborn child should not be ended as the result of another's crime.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
The Church's stance on abortion, I think, has a lot to do with how we use our power of procreation. It is not a trivial ability and should be used properly. Exceptions for rape and incest are understandable in that regard as it is a very difficult situation which the woman did not have control over - they were forced to be involved in that procreative power.
Otherwise, the ultra succinctness of the post just sounds like the commercials for those things like weight loss pills or... ahem... "male enhancement"... 
