When are embryos first alive?

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course one has to be a bit more specific than an old Jewish belief. Old can be 200 years, or it could be 2000 years, heck it could be 3500 years ago. Its entirely possible that back when the law was given the beliefs were entirely different than 200 years ago, actually more than possible, probable.

Well, and there's the rub. She's a reform Jew; but she did note that ultra-Orthodox Jews take a different approach and frown on all abortions. Of course, she believed that hers was the ancient and "scriptural" view (don't we all? )

[MarginOfError]

God has said to set up his laws as the laws of the land. The Constitution is based upon God's laws as Supreme. God has said to not murder. Thus we must protect all life, especially the most innocent of all, from being destroyed by anyone who would do such a thing & punish them if they do. We cannot allow others to break God's laws & hurt the innocent.

If we would stand by these laws today, then we wouldn't have to have all the destructions before Zion was established, but unfortunately very few people will stand up & support God's laws & choose leaders who will uphold such laws. So our destruction is sure.

I'm afraid that the claim that abortion is murder is one I don't accept. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider abortion to be murder. Consider (this is a repost of something I wrote to a sister who was wondering if she could repent of having had an abortion).

Oftentimes in a community like this, where the majority of the opinions are already in agreement, comments about abortion can be a little exaggerated. In LDS circles, we sometimes speak of abortion with very harsh words, terming it “murder”, “shedding innocent blood,” and even “unforgivable.” I hope you can learn to disregard these comments—in LDS doctrine, these statements are simply not true.

I first refer you to an article in the August 1972 Ensign entitled “The Case against Easier Abortion Laws.” (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Case against Easier Abortion Laws) In this article, Gilbert Scharffs quotes from the June 1972 Priesthood Bulletin. I am going to share a part of that quote here, but I want it to be clear that the quote that follows is taken directly from the Priesthood Bulletin and is considered an official explanation of policy to Church leaders.

The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.

As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.

So you see, in the view of the Church, abortion is not in the same class of sin as murder, nor is it in the same class as “shedding innocent blood.” Any member of the Church who says otherwise is doing so in blatant contradiction to Church policy on the issue. Furthermore, abortion is a forgivable sin.

Boyd K. Packer delivered a talk in 1992 that I highly recommend you read. It was given in the April General Conference of that year and is entitled “Our Moral Environment.” (LDS.org - Ensign Article - Our Moral Environment). In this talk, Elder Packer said:

In the battle of life, the adversary takes enormous numbers of prisoners, and many who know of no way to escape and are pressed into his service. Every soul confined to a concentration camp of sin and guilt has a key to the gate. The adversary cannot hold them if they know how to use it. The key is labeled Repentance. The twin principles of repentance and forgiveness exceed in strength the awesome power of the adversary.

I know of no sins connected with the moral standard for which we cannot be forgiven. I do not exempt abortion. The formula is stated in forty words:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

“By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” (D&C 58:42–43.)

He is very clear that forgiveness is available to those who have had an abortion. Forgiveness is available to you. That’s a promise that every Apostle will make to you.

The last resource I will share with you is a talk given by Elder Robert D. Hales in the October Conference in 1976. He read a letter from a young woman who had an abortion. At the time, this young woman was an inactive member of the Church. She tells of the circumstances leading up to her abortion, her return to Church, and her struggles with obtaining forgiveness after returning to Church. I won’t quote the whole story (but you can read it here: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Lord Offers Everyone a Way Back from Sin). The only part I will share is this:

Following my interview with the bishop, I found myself alternating between depression in which I wondered if I would ever be forgiven and becoming lax in doing the things I should be doing. I have learned that ‘to change’ isn’t easy. It takes time. One must learn to ‘try’ and ‘try again.’

“Now I find myself growing ever closer to the Lord—more positive. I know if I continue to work and to grow, my Father in heaven will forgive me, but most importantly, I will also forgive myself. The important thing is that I must persevere in doing what I know to be right.

I do not have the ability, nor the authority to tell you if the Savior has forgiven you. I can sense, however, that you have not forgiven yourself, which is something you must learn to do.

Now that we have established that you can be forgiven we need to stress this point endlessly: Do not lose hope. Also, do not try to take this journey alone. It appears you have felt hopelessness in your situation for so long that you have sunk into a depression. Seek help. Discuss this more with your bishop, and let him know that you neither feel forgiven nor have you forgiven yourself. Involve your husband in this discussion. Seek professional help through counseling and/or therapy.

You are absolutely not beyond the reach of the atonement. I promise you that if you will seek help, and diligently seek the strength to forgive yourself, you will come to know a joy and happiness as exquisite and wonderful as is your pain and despair.

With the greatest of affections,

MOE

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm afraid that the claim that abortion is murder is one I don't accept. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider abortion to be murder. Consider (this is a repost of something I wrote to a sister who was wondering if she could repent of having had an abortion).

From a legalistic standpoint, you can believe abortion is killing without believing abortion to be murder.

[Guest Alana]

I'm interested in this subject not for the implications of abortion but for birth control. Lets interpret 'life' as in when the body and spirit are joined. Could it be at fertilization? It could. If that is the case, even though The Pill usually works by preventing fertilization, sometimes it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. In that case The Pill is ending a human life.

It's a hard call. I want to err on the side of caution, since I dont' know for sure. To find out that while on birth control, sperm got through and an egg was released and it was the extra hormones preventing implantation and that fertilized egg actually had received a spirit, that would be devastating. Then again, is that thought process practical? Is having a dozen kids a good idea when you can't handle it? Just some of my random thoughts.

[MarginOfError]

It's a tough question for which we don't have an answer. If every egg that was ever fertilized received a spirit, then there would be millions of unborn children reaching the eternities without ever experiencing a mortal trial. By some estimates, as many as 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, with a great deal of those occurring before the mother knows she is pregnant. Will every miscarriage you have be sealed to your eternal family?

I find the Church's policies on stillborn children to be interesting here. Stillborn children may be recorded on group family sheets, but temple ordinances are not performed for them. "However, this does not deny the possibility that a stillborn child may be part of the family in the eternities. Parents are encouraged to trust the Lord to resolve such cases in the way He knows is best" (CHI, 185). So we don't even know if our stillborn children will be part of our eternal families.

We do also get this little tidbit..."It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body" (CHI, 185). Combining all of this evidence leads me to the same conclusion Just_A_Guy had, that life begins later than fertilization/conception (as many pro-lifers would have us think), but earlier than what pro-choice advocates would like us to think.

Also, based on this information, I do not feel that any of the common forms of birth control are a moral issue, so long as they are taken prospectively. I feel the technicalities revolving around start of life, ovulation, fertilization, implantation in those first few days matter less than the intent in which you decisions are made. But that is merely my interpretation and holds no authoritative power whatsoever.

[MarginOfError]

From a legalistic standpoint, you can believe abortion is killing without believing abortion to be murder.

Technically it is killing. You have a mass of living tissue that you are terminating. But should we treat killing the same way we treat murder?

I suppose we can look at it this way. We know we are commanded not to shed innocent blood. Blood was commonly used as a symbol of life and/or mortality. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood because it was wrong to eat the life of the animal. So let's make a substitution. We are commanded not to shed innocent life.

In my previous post I pointed out that we do not know when a fetus becomes a life. Many people here have their opinions, and that is fine, so long as they do not pass judgment on others based on their opinions. I simply ask that they recognize that the Church does not officially endorse a period at which a fetus becomes a life.

[foreverafter]

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider abortion to be murder.

While the Church does not consider it murder or unforgiveable, it does excommunicate for it & considers it destroying a life & as sick & horrid as almost any other abomination on that highest level of sins. The prophets have warned about this method of birth control as any other, that one can lose their exaltation if done unjustifiably. And the Church says that only God can justifiy one to do it, by the Spirit, circumstance alone doesn't justifiy it. And I believe that anyone with the Spirit is repulsed & disgusted beyond words at the thought of it, at any stage from conception to birth.

[foreverafter]

I want to err on the side of caution, since I dont' know for sure. To find out that while on birth control, sperm got through and an egg was released and it was the extra hormones preventing implantation and that fertilized egg actually had received a spirit, that would be devastating. Then again, is that thought process practical?

Yes, that's why the Prophets have warned us so much about birth control.

Is having a dozen kids a good idea when you can't handle it? Yes, Most all mothers with 8-10-12-14 children I have talked to have said they didn't feel they could handle it but that's where faith & righteousness comes in.

...

[Wingnut]

While the Church does not consider it murder or unforgiveable, it does excommunicate for it & considers it destroying a life & as sick & horrid as almost any other abomination on that highest level of sins. The prophets have warned about this method of birth control as any other, that one can lose their exaltation if done unjustifiably. And the Church says that only God can justifiy one to do it, by the Spirit, circumstance alone doesn't justifiy it. And I believe that anyone with the Spirit is repulsed & disgusted beyond words at the thought of it, at any stage from conception to birth.

I've never heard of anyone being excommunicated for having an abortion. I have, however, known people personally who have been baptized after having had an abortion. I think you are ignoring the fact that no one is saying that abortion is acceptable as a form of birth control. It is not birth control when a woman terminates a pregnancy because of rape, incest, danger to her life, or when the baby is not expected to survive beyond birth. People here who are saying anything in favor of abortion are doing so only in those cases, not as an elective form of birth control.

[MarginOfError]

While the Church does not consider it murder or unforgiveable, it does excommunicate for it & considers it destroying a life & as sick & horrid as almost any other abomination on that highest level of sins. The prophets have warned about this method of birth control as any other, that one can lose their exaltation if done unjustifiably. And the Church says that only God can justifiy one to do it, by the Spirit, circumstance alone doesn't justifiy it. And I believe that anyone with the Spirit is repulsed & disgusted beyond words at the thought of it, at any stage from conception to birth.

One can also be excommunicated for engaging in the act that would lead to the need for an abortion unjustifiably. So, I'll agree that it's worse than fornication. I also agreed that it was abhorrent.

As for what you've put in the bolded section, one can only lose their exaltation for having an abortion if they choose not to repent of the action.

Also, the Church is not clear about whether it is "destroying a life," because the Church does not indicate when life begins.

It might also be worth noting that when the Church talks about abortion, it doesn't even mention the issue of fetal life. Are we really so certain that the problem surrounding abortion is entirely a matter of life? Could it not also be a matter of proper and respectful use of procreative powers? Isn't the respect of that power why fornication is a sin?

[Just_A_Guy]

Technically it is killing. You have a mass of living tissue that you are terminating. But should we treat killing the same way we treat murder?

Postulating for a moment that the "living tissue" is actually a life in its own right:

From a secular-law standpoint, I would say yes: prohibit/punish it generally, but allow certain exceptions (self-defense, for example--an umbrella under which mother's life/health, rape, and incest could all be covered).

From a theological-law standpoint, I think it depends a lot on what you knew, when you knew it, and why you proceeded to act the way you did.

[JohnnyRudick]

Technically it is killing. You have a mass of living tissue that you are terminating. But should we treat killing the same way we treat murder? . . .

In my previous post I pointed out that we do not know when a fetus becomes a life. Many people here have their opinions, and that is fine, so long as they do not pass judgment on others based on their opinions. I simply ask that they recognize that the Church does not officially endorse a period at which a fetus becomes a life.

I still think that we should be careful to differentiate between "life" and "Living Soul"

The grass is alive as well as the tree.

Bro. Rudick

[MarginOfError]

I still think that we should be careful to differentiate between "life" and "Living Soul"

The grass is alive as well as the tree.

Bro. Rudick

And that's exactly my point is we don't know when that life, ie the fetus, becomes a living soul.

[Guest missingsomething]

You know I won a debate in high school once on this topic. We had to choose our opposite side and debate.

The point that won the debate?.... If an embryo is not a living thing....because it could not sustain life outside the wound... then we must also conclude that a parasite is not living. Because a parasite can not sustain life outside of its host. But if we say a parasite is a living thing...then we must also say an embryo/fetus is living because it grows, changes, and matures by feeding off the host (aka mother).

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right -and I would never help someone nor tell them I thought it was ok... Im just not ok with making someone else choose the way I think.... let them be responsible for their actions.) (crunches down and covers head as the darts start to fly)...

Edited March 27, 2009 by missingsomething
derr...spellling

[Dravin]

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right -and I would never help someone nor tell them I thought it was ok... Im just not ok with making someone else choose the way I think.... let them be responsible for their actions.) (crunches down and covers head as the darts start to fly)...

It is interesting where people draw the line, on one end you have no laws on the other coffee is illegal. Most of course fall somewhere in the middle.

[MarginOfError]

It is interesting where people draw the line, on one end you have no laws on the other coffee is illegal. Most of course fall somewhere in the middle.

Exactly as it should be, too. Governing in an area as large, diverse, and pluralistic as the US is all about finding the line that satisfies the most people (note, that doesn't necessarily mean the simple majority, particularly in a multinomial poll such as this one).

[MarginOfError]

You know I won a debate in high school once on this topic. We had to choose our opposite side and debate.

The point that won the debate?.... If an embryo is not a living thing....because it could not sustain life outside the wound... then we must also conclude that a parasite is not living. Because a parasite can not sustain life outside of its host. But if we say a parasite is a living thing...then we must also say an embryo/fetus is living because it grows, changes, and matures by feeding off the host (aka mother).

The flip side to that argument is that if we are going to compare a fetus to a parasite, then we also have to ask ourselves how much value do we assign to the life of a parasite? If we conclude that it is okay to end the life of a tape worm, then isn't it okay to end the life of a fetus? They're both parasites! (Disclaimer: I do not agree with that conclusion, but only propose it for the sake of discussion)

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right -and I would never help someone nor tell them I thought it was ok... Im just not ok with making someone else choose the way I think.... let them be responsible for their actions.) (crunches down and covers head as the darts start to fly)...

Amen sister! I think it is important to reference D&C 121:41 - 44. If we are to lead others to moral high ground, let us lead by persuasion and love. And let us persuade women not to have abortions. And let us do it in a way that they know our faithfulness to and love for them is stronger than the cords of death (I'm still working on that part with my political opponents).

[Hemidakota]

Inspired by recent threads on abortion, I wanted to go deeper into the philosophy of the issue and see how people define life via this question. Have fun!

If there was an answer, I would use the one in Book of Mormon where the Lord was talking to Nephi a day prior to entering into this mortal world. I believe we are symbiont beings which is filled with many intelligences. I believe during the growth of the body, these intelligences are at work in bringing together mortal shell to house our spirit.Yet, we can conclude it is living but not housed yet. Also, in adding, I do believe women do know when the spirit has entered into that shell.

[hordak]

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right -and I would never help someone nor tell them I thought it was ok... Im just not ok with making someone else choose the way I think.... let them be responsible for their actions.) (crunches down and covers head as the darts start to fly)...

I'm all for agency. Drinking, smoking, gambling. If fact i believe Marijuana and Prostitution should be legal. But IMO abortion destroys the agency of another and therefor is wrong.

I think the real important question is what the OP brought up.Defining when life begins in the interest of equality. I have heard of people charged with a crime for causing the death of an unborn fetus (though i don't know if there is a cut off date) and think it would be absurd to determine the rights based on the intention of the mother.

[JohnnyRudick]

You know I won a debate in high school once on this topic. We had to choose our opposite side and debate.

The point that won the debate?.... If an embryo is not a living thing....because it could not sustain life outside the wound... then we must also conclude that a parasite is not living. Because a parasite can not sustain life outside of its host. But if we say a parasite is a living thing...then we must also say an embryo/fetus is living because it grows, changes, and matures by feeding off the host (aka mother).

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right -and I would never help someone nor tell them I thought it was ok... Im just not ok with making someone else choose the way I think.... let them be responsible for their actions.) (crunches down and covers head as the darts start to fly)...

I guess you would not have been much help in freeing the slaves then, huh?

After all,

I would not have slaves and I think blacks have souls and all, but I can't dictate what others do with their own property(bodies). Right?

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 27, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)

[JohnnyRudick]

(PERSONALLY- I could never vote for pro-life- HOWEVER (before the pitch forks come out)...it is because I believe in agency. I dont have the keys to judge others in their thoughts and hearts. I would never ever ever ever do it myself, I do believe it is not right...

Politically speaking,

you have been effectively "neutralized".

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I'm all for agency. Drinking, smoking, gambling. If fact i believe Marijuana and Prostitution should be legal. But IMO abortion destroys the agency of another and therefor is wrong.

I think the real important question is what the OP brought up.Defining when life begins in the interest of equality. I have heard of people charged with a crime for causing the death of an unborn fetus (though i don't know if there is a cut off date) and think it would be absurd to determine the rights based on the intention of the mother.

If I read you right, A-men brother.

I'll go a few steps further though.

If that "parasite" is a living soul with agency of it's own, then weather it is sanctioned by law or not to kill it I still have my own responsibility concerning it.

The choice is mine. to kill or not to kill.

If I believe that it is a child, do I have a right to try to preserve the life, rights of another child even if it is not my child?

At what age is that child protected?

At first breath?

2 years? It is still a parasite. Throw it out on the street and it will die.

Because I carry it it is a choice, put it down and I have to carry it?

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 27, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought, again;-)

[Wingnut]

I'm all for agency. Drinking, smoking, gambling. If fact i believe Marijuana and Prostitution should be legal. But IMO abortion destroys the agency of another and therefor is wrong.

A fetus has no agency. However, you appear to be in favor of taking away (destroying) the agency of millions of women throughout the entire country.

[hordak]

A fetus has no agency. However, you appear to be in favor of taking away (destroying) the agency of millions of women throughout the entire country.

That depends on your view of when life starts. IMO Heart beat equals life.

Edited March 27, 2009 by hordak

[foreverafter]

you appear to be in favor of taking away (destroying) the agency of millions of women throughout the entire country.

No woman on the planet has the right to hurt or destroy a child once she has conceived it, unless maybe for perservation of her life, etc.. Unless it's rape, all women make their choice to put their life & health on the line & make pregnancy possible when they choose to be intimate with a man.