Funding abortions

[fatima]

Or if somebody breaks into your home and is threatening to kill you? You are not allowed to defend yourself?

The topic at hand is the life of an innocent, unborn baby being intentionally killed. We're not talking about a criminal.

If an unborn baby dies as a result of treatment to the mother, that is not the same as the willful act of murder.

[fatima]

I am glad the Catholic position is not so extreme, Anatess; and naturally Fatima is free to qualify her earlier post if she so desires. But until or unless she does so, I take her words at face value at least as a representation of her own position--and she did not say "the unavoidable consequence of removing the child to save the mother would be of a greater good." Her exact words were:

I was not in a position last night to quote the Catechism, but Anatess is correct. The intention must never be (and I'm pretty sure I made that clear) to kill the innocent.

[fatima]

fatima...its clear that you have no understanding of medicine. FYI...the health/life of the mother is paramount because if she dies obviously neither live. Generally speaking a medically necessary means that there is no chance the mother will survive...stage 4 cancer (especially a cancer such as Leukemia) would not qualify. An example could be uterine hemorrhaging... Would it make sense to you to allow a woman to bleed to death right in front of you which would also kill the fetus when surgically repairing the tear in the uterus would save the womans life, though it would terminate the pregnancy? We are talking about doing absolutely nothing and allowing two to die when you can save one.

If you were to truly say "absolutely no abortion regardless of the circumstance" then doctors and nurses would literally just have to stand there and watch the woman in front of them die...im sorry, but that is against the hippocratic oath AND ethical medicine. As a nurse its not my job to say..."oh, im sorry dear, i can't help you, your going to have to die because there is a 5 week embryo in your stomach that is going to die anyway"...no ma'am.

It seems I'm going to have to repeat myself to everyone, and I'm sure I should've taken the time to quote the Catechism, perhaps this could have been avoided. If you got a chance to read Anatess' quotes, you will see that performing procedures that result in the death of the baby is entirely different than going in with the intention of killing the baby. Do you accept that there is a moral distinction?

[fatima]

anatess....This whole post kinda suggests that Fatima is saying that even when medically necessary, abortion is wrong....infact it strait out says it... the actual catholic position is different as you explained (thanks btw), but what fatima has said about it doesn't follow that position.

While I didn't quote the Catechism, I very clearly stated in my posts that "intentional killing" is the sin. I'm disappointed that you are all finding it so hard to understand the difference.

[talisyn]

Someone school me on this issue. Are any of my tax dollars currently being spent on abortions? If the health bill passes, will MY money be going to fund abortions?

GOP Antiabortion Provision in Health Bill Defeated - WSJ.com

Farmer, all of your tax dollars are going to fund abortions and welfare, which is considerate of you because that allows everyone else in the United States to fund roads, military, national parks, vaccinations, schools, and all sorts of other federal-funded things. Thank you for taking one for the team

[lost87]

•FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.

•FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.

•FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

ok...I am a hardcore democrat most of the time....but IF your interpretation of this law is correct then I completely am against it. I need to read the ACTUAL bill and not some of these one sided news stories and public announcements (conservative and liberal alike) to get the whole picture.

[MarginOfError]

And they all ned to understand that we need "specialists" whom are experts at the procedure in cases of complication; so when we see a doctor or clinic bearing the name "abortion" clinic; it automatically does not mean something evil immoral and wrong.:)

As an adamant pro-choice advocate, I'm calling you out on this one. We don't need specialists to perform abortions. Your average OB/GYN already probably performs several D&Cs and D&Es each year as part of routine care following miscarriages. The procedures used to perform an abortion are routine. Specialists are not required.

[MarginOfError]

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief.

A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Wrong is not right "sometimes".

The position of the Catholic Church only makes far more sense when you accept that its position is based on the premise of protecting life. Essential to understanding the Catholic view is that Catholicism (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that life begins at conception.

The LDS Church makes no statement about life begins other than that a person's spirit enters his or her body sometime between conception and birth. The LDS position on abortion has nothing to do with 'protecting life.' In fact, the LDS position on abortion is that abortion is not the same as murder, nor is it the same as shedding innocent blood. We often cite D&C 59:6 as the starting point for our opposition to abortion. That verse reads, "Thou shalt not ... kill, nor do anything like unto it." If the abortion is 'like unto' killing, then it is clearly not the same as killing.

A reference that might make more clear why the LDS Church opposes abortion would be D&C 121:37, which states "but when we undertake to cover our sins... behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved..." We object to the notion that sexual activity can be considered entirely separate from procreation*.

The Catholic stance on abortion would be absurd when applied to the LDS assumptions. Likewise, the LDS stance is absurd when applied to the Catholic assumptions. You may believe what you wish, but there do exist other and equally valid ways to view the issue than what you state.

* Note: I'm not advocating that sex may not be recreational. Just that spouses ought to accept that sex is procreational first, and recreational second. (I'm sure there's a better way to articulate that)

More detail about the LDS understanding of abortion

[fatima]

The position of the Catholic Church only makes far more sense when you accept that its position is based on the premise of protecting life. Essential to understanding the Catholic view is that Catholicism (correct me if I'm wrong) believes that life begins at conception.

The LDS Church makes no statement about life begins other than that a person's spirit enters his or her body sometime between conception and birth. The LDS position on abortion has nothing to do with 'protecting life.' In fact, the LDS position on abortion is that abortion is not the same as murder, nor is it the same as shedding innocent blood. We often cite D&C 59:6 as the starting point for our opposition to abortion. That verse reads, "Thou shalt not ... kill, nor do anything like unto it." If the abortion is 'like unto' killing, then it is clearly not the same as killing.

A reference that might make more clear why the LDS Church opposes abortion would be D&C 121:37, which states "but when we undertake to cover our sins... behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved..." We object to the notion that sexual activity can be considered entirely separate from procreation*.

The Catholic stance on abortion would be absurd when applied to the LDS assumptions. Likewise, the LDS stance is absurd when applied to the Catholic assumptions. You may believe what you wish, but there do exist other and equally valid ways to view the issue than what you state.

* Note: I'm not advocating that sex may not be recreational. Just that spouses ought to accept that sex is procreational first, and recreational second. (I'm sure there's a better way to articulate that)

More detail about the LDS understanding of abortion

As a Catholic, I am quite uninformed about LDS doctrine on the subject, excepting what has been presented here. If the LDS church assumes that the person's "spirit", or soul, enters sometime between conception and birth, why not err on the side of "conception"?

Where does the LDS church say that abortion is only "like unto" murder? Where does the LDS church, and more importantly, why does the LDS church, not consider it murder?

I had a sonogram today, and at 9 1/2 weeks, the baby's heart was beating, and I saw his little arm wiggling.

If the LDS opposition to abortion has nothing to do with protecting innocent life, then what is it's opposition based on? Why any opposition at all if the baby is not innocent human life?

[MarginOfError]

As a Catholic, I am quite uninformed about LDS doctrine on the subject, excepting what has been presented here. If the LDS church assumes that the person's "spirit", or soul, enters sometime between conception and birth, why not err on the side of "conception"?

Where does the LDS church say that abortion is only "like unto" murder? Where does the LDS church, and more importantly, why does the LDS church, not consider it murder?

I had a sonogram today, and at 9 1/2 weeks, the baby's heart was beating, and I saw his little arm wiggling.

If the LDS opposition to abortion has nothing to do with protecting innocent life, then what is it's opposition based on? Why any opposition at all if the baby is not innocent human life?

In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life. (Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Liahona, Mar 2000, 15)

The LDS position on abortion is about proper use of proceative powers. If sexual relations are treated with the reverence and respect that we ought to treat all things of a sacred nature, then abortion issue would be irrelevant. Our objection to abortion is that, to begin, the couple chose not to recognize the nature and purpose of sexual relations, and then followed that poor decision with a second poor decision to try to cancel out the first.

Also, by my understanding of LDS doctrine, I would be hesitant to accept your definition of life. You seem to equate living with alive. An unfertilized ovum is a living organism, but would you call it alive? When exactly does a living organism become a life? The LDS answer to that question is when the spirit and the body join together to make a living soul. We have no definitive revelation about when that occurs, nor do we have any reason to believe that it happens at the same time for each individual. But to the Latter-day Saints, it doesn't matter. Aborting a fetus that hasn't joined with its spirit is just as abhorrent as aborting one that has. This is because it isn't about life--it's about reverence and proper use of procreative powers.

[lost87]

As an adamant pro-choice advocate, I'm calling you out on this one. We don't need specialists to perform abortions. Your average OB/GYN already probably performs several D&Cs and D&Es each year as part of routine care following miscarriages. The procedures used to perform an abortion are routine. Specialists are not required.

in support of this statement....specialist are DEFINATELY not needed. Now not even doctors are needed...all RN's are trained in how to administer the medicines that induce abortion, and how to perform emergency surgical abortions....It is a requirement in most RN programs, including my own. We aren't required to actually do it, but we have to know how in case our patient requires it immediately to save her life.

[fatima]

The LDS position on abortion is about proper use of proceative powers. If sexual relations are treated with the reverence and respect that we ought to treat all things of a sacred nature, then abortion issue would be irrelevant. Our objection to abortion is that, to begin, the couple chose not to recognize the nature and purpose of sexual relations, and then followed that poor decision with a second poor decision to try to cancel out the first.

Also, by my understanding of LDS doctrine, I would be hesitant to accept your definition of life. You seem to equate living with alive. An unfertilized ovum is a living organism, but would you call it alive? When exactly does a living organism become a life? The LDS answer to that question is when the spirit and the body join together to make a living soul. We have no definitive revelation about when that occurs, nor do we have any reason to believe that it happens at the same time for each individual. But to the Latter-day Saints, it doesn't matter. Aborting a fetus that hasn't joined with its spirit is just as abhorrent as aborting one that has. This is because it isn't about life--it's about reverence and proper use of procreative powers.

Of course an ovum is not the same as an unborn baby. Do you consider them the same? Do you think an unborn baby is of no greater or lesser value than a horse, a possum, or a fish?

As for the sacred purpose of sex, the LDS position sounds very much like the Catholic position, but I'm still left wondering at what point the LDS consider the unborn baby separate and distinct human being?

[lost87]

I am pretty sure that no one has even come close to suggesting that on this thread, and no one is arguing against the fact that abortion in most cases is very wrong. The LDS and Catholic positions are similar and the slight differences don't really provide much room for so much argument.

[fatima]

I am pretty sure that no one has even come close to suggesting that on this thread, and no one is arguing against the fact that abortion in most cases is very wrong. The LDS and Catholic positions are similar and the slight differences don't really provide much room for so much argument.

Well, I'm really responding to MarginofError with that question. I'm trying to determine, based on some things he/she has said, on what basis the LDS oppose abortion in the first place. MoE said it is not

about life

, but about the sacredness of sexuality. If it is not about life, why is abortion ever wrong? If you can divide the holiness of sex from the gift of life that comes from that sacred union, what makes the individual baby ever worthy of protection? Aborted or not, that baby cannot undo the sin that the

couple chose not to recognize the nature and purpose of sexual relations

.

Abortion itself is not an inherent evil, but the abuse of sexuality is the evil. So, why condemn abortion at all?

[lost87]

I think you are misinterpreting what margin said. He is not at all saying that the holiness of sex is divided from the gift of life that comes from the sacred union...in fact, we believe the sexual union of a married man and woman is sacred BECAUSE of the life that comes from it...not at all independent of life.

[fatima]

I think you are misinterpreting what margin said. He is not at all saying that the holiness of sex is divided from the gift of life that comes from the sacred union...in fact, we believe the sexual union of a married man and woman is sacred BECAUSE of the life that comes from it...not at all independent of life.

Then why does the LDS church say that abortion is sometimes okay? Earlier in the thread it was said that if the mother's life is in danger then abortion is okay. Which brings us back to square one. Why is that mother's life more valuable than the unborn baby? The position of the Catholic Church says that you do everything in your power to save both, or that if the demise of the child is an unintended consequence of treatment, it is not the same as going in to kill the baby.

If the unborn baby is a baby, why is it ever, ever, ever okay to kill a baby?

[MarginOfError]

Of course an ovum is not the same as an unborn baby. Do you consider them the same? Do you think an unborn baby is of no greater or lesser value than a horse, a possum, or a fish?

No, I don't consider the ovum and a fetus to be the same. But what makes an ovum any different than an ovum that has received a sperm? Catholicism says that fertilization alone creates life. LDS doctrine does not--it says life begins when the spirit and the body are united.

As for the sacred purpose of sex, the LDS position sounds very much like the Catholic position, but I'm still left wondering at what point the LDS consider the unborn baby separate and distinct human being?

I've answered this question twice already. We don't know. Nor--it would seem--do we particularly care. We do not distinguish between abortion of a fetus that has received a spirit and abortion of a fetus that has not. Both are equally abhorrent. Both are sinful. Both are a failure to accept the responsibility and empowerment that comes with engaging in sexual activity. Both are an abuse of God-given power to facilitate the introduction of life into this world. We consider the abuse of that power to be the sin.

Then why does the LDS church say that abortion is sometimes okay? Earlier in the thread it was said that if the mother's life is in danger then abortion is okay.

Although we often say this, this isn't exactly what the Church says. The Church's policy is that in a few exceptional circumstances abortion is tolerated, by which we mean that the Church would not pursue disciplinary action against an individual who underwent an abortion for those reasons. But members are still encouraged to discuss the possibility with the bishop, pray sincerely, and weight the options carefully.

Which brings us back to square one. Why is that mother's life more valuable than the unborn baby?

No one ever said that it was. You've chosen to infer that--and erroneously so--by evaluating the LDS position on abortion with Catholic lenses.

The position of the Catholic Church says that you do everything in your power to save both, or that if the demise of the child is an unintended consequence of treatment, it is not the same as going in to kill the baby.

If the unborn baby is a baby, why is it ever, ever, ever okay to kill a baby?

Great! Catholicism is entitled to that viewpoint. The LDS Church has stated that it will allow for possible exceptions for rape or incest; when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or the fetus has severe defects that will not allow it to survive past birth. These are different viewpoints based on different sets of doctrine. Both of the viewpoints are entirely consistent within their respective frameworks.

Now consider what I've said before; the LDS Church objects to abortion because the practice by its very nature attempts to separate the procreative power from the sex act. Under this paradigm, someone who is raped was not trying to separate procreation from sexual activity--she is not required to be held to the consequences of a choice she did not make. Whereas she did show proper reverence and respect for procreative action, she is permitted the choice of what to do with the resulting pregnancy.

For a family where the mother's health or life is in jeopardy, or in the case of serious defects, the couple clearly was showing proper reverence and respect for the procreative act. They are permitted to make the choice based on the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of the mother, father, and any others in their family.

Again, the key in each of these cases is that the mother/parents have shown proper respect for procreation--they have not tried to replace procreation with pure recreation.

[fatima]

No, I don't consider the ovum and a fetus to be the same. But what makes an ovum any different than an ovum that has received a sperm? Catholicism says that fertilization alone creates life. LDS doctrine does not--it says life begins when the spirit and the body are united.

I've answered this question twice already. We don't know. Nor--it would seem--do we particularly care. We do not distinguish between abortion of a fetus that has received a spirit and abortion of a fetus that has not. Both are equally abhorrent. Both are sinful. Both are a failure to accept the responsibility and empowerment that comes with engaging in sexual activity. Both are an abuse of God-given power to facilitate the introduction of life into this world. We consider the abuse of that power to be the sin.

Although we often say this, this isn't exactly what the Church says. The Church's policy is that in a few exceptional circumstances abortion is tolerated, by which we mean that the Church would not pursue disciplinary action against an individual who underwent an abortion for those reasons. But members are still encouraged to discuss the possibility with the bishop, pray sincerely, and weight the options carefully.

No one ever said that it was. You've chosen to infer that--and erroneously so--by evaluating the LDS position on abortion with Catholic lenses.

Great! Catholicism is entitled to that viewpoint. The LDS Church has stated that it will allow for possible exceptions for rape or incest; when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or the fetus has severe defects that will not allow it to survive past birth. These are different viewpoints based on different sets of doctrine. Both of the viewpoints are entirely consistent within their respective frameworks.

Now consider what I've said before; the LDS Church objects to abortion because the practice by its very nature attempts to separate the procreative power from the sex act. Under this paradigm, someone who is raped was not trying to separate procreation from sexual activity--she is not required to be held to the consequences of a choice she did not make. Whereas she did show proper reverence and respect for procreative action, she is permitted the choice of what to do with the resulting pregnancy.

For a family where the mother's health or life is in jeopardy, or in the case of serious defects, the couple clearly was showing proper reverence and respect for the procreative act. They are permitted to make the choice based on the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of the mother, father, and any others in their family.

Again, the key in each of these cases is that the mother/parents have shown proper respect for procreation--they have not tried to replace procreation with pure recreation.

Then it seems to follow that the LDS does not think that God is the author of Life, that He made a mistake in allowing for the defected babe, or the burden on the mother, and He is therefore okay with the destruction of what He created. In the sacred act in which God the Father may open or close the womb, He may err and then allows for mere humans to correct His mistake.

If LDS believe that God is the Author of Life, that the marital union is sacred, and that the unborn baby is a living human being, then to allow for exceptions is contrary to your stated beliefs.

Both are equally abhorrent. Both are sinful. Both are a failure to accept the responsibility and empowerment that comes with engaging in sexual activity. Both are an abuse of God-given power to facilitate the introduction of life into this world. We consider the abuse of that power to be the sin.

[MarginOfError]

It would be pretty cool if you could at least pretend to be trying to understand what we're saying. I'd even be happy if you were pretending to listen. So instead of explaining anything further, I challenge you to do the following:

Then it seems to follow that the LDS does not think that God is the author of Life,

Show me where anyone has said this.

He made a mistake in allowing for the defected babe, or the burden on the mother, and He is therefore okay with the destruction of what He created.

Show me where anyone has said this.

In the sacred act in which God the Father may open or close the womb, He may err and then allows for mere humans to correct His mistake.

Provide evidence that God personally constructs every fetus and that the development of a fetus is not subject to some random variation.

If LDS believe that God is the Author of Life, that the marital union is sacred, and that the unborn baby is a living human being, then to allow for exceptions is contrary to your stated beliefs.

Show me where I have said that we consider a fetus to be the same as a living human being. (I can show you at least two places where I have said the exact opposite)

We can continue the discussion when you can show that you're interested in understanding why we believe what we believe.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Dravin
Name calling.

[Just_A_Guy]

As a follow-up, the ObamaCare bill the House passed this weekend included an amendment stopping ObamaCare funds from funding abortions.

Whether it will make it through conference committee (if ObamaCare makes it that far) is still uncertain.

[Moksha]

Someone school me on this issue. Are any of my tax dollars currently being spent on abortions? If the health bill passes, will MY money be going to fund abortions?

GOP Antiabortion Provision in Health Bill Defeated - WSJ.com

Most likely they will follow LDS guidelines, so the answer is yes. When preserving the Mother's life and possibly in the case of rape or incest.

[Charlyc]

The medical need for abortion is not a very good reason for its general availability. It wouldn't be difficult to make legislation that prohibits abortion except under the recommendation of competent medical care. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective. The big question is this: what does 'elective' mean?

When we talk about elective abortions, we're talking about people who have chosen to have an abortion for any reason other than a medical need

Legislation wont work always. Here when abortions where banned, gynecologist would put then through as 'cysts removal' or something similar, and no one could stop them.

[Just_A_Guy]

Most likely they will follow LDS guidelines, so the answer is yes. When preserving the Mother's life and possibly in the case of rape or incest.

At least as per the Wikipedia article I cited above, a June Factcheck.org research project concluded that ObamaCare in its then-current incarnation would indeed fund elective abortions.

[Moksha]

At least as per the Wikipedia article I cited above, a June Factcheck.org research project concluded that ObamaCare in its then-current incarnation would indeed fund elective abortions.

Well, since that ObamaCare does not exist and what we get will emanate out of a hammered out version of the House and Senate version, my best guess is that it will follow the LDS guidlines that one can currently see in today's Medicaid rules.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, since that ObamaCare does not exist and what we get will emanate out of a hammered out version of the House and Senate version, my best guess is that it will follow the LDS guidlines that one can currently see in today's Medicaid rules.

The Dem whip disagrees with you.