Pregnant girl kicked in stomach during a high school brawl. (and an abortion monologue)

[PrinceofLight2000]

Not too many details yet, but I'll update as they come.

Pregnant teen injured in Saturday brawl at Cleveland | 911 | Beacon Hill News

Now, I have a question to pose. Let's assume this girl loses the baby. Why is it that there are some people who would consider what the people in this fight did to this girl and her baby murderous, and yet these same people would turn around and defend it if the mother did essentially what these thugs did to her own baby? Apparently it's only murder if the mother wants to keep the child.

I've been listening to The Abortion Plan by Oceana lately. It's been racking my mind.

I understand that the Church has a position that allows abortion under certain circumstances, and I accept it as God's word. From here on out, this is just me speaking for me. I know I'm not a woman and so I'll never have any idea what pregnancy or labor is like, but I could never kill my child even if I died in the process, or even if we died together. Why do we lose sight of eternity so quickly? Furthermore, personally, I find it horrible that anyone would take an innocent life under even circumstances of rape or incest. The baby raped no one. I would also think that it would be better for anyone with a debilitating genetic disease as a result of incest to experience the joys and lessons of life despite their suffering. Especially as Latter-Day Saints. How can we deny life to someone simply because they will suffer in this life due to a physical deformity? Will they not become stronger for it? Why deny them that opportunity, how large or small it may be given their disorder, when we know it is a temporary earthly affliction?

I was born three and a half months early so this is a very personal issue for me. I have a minor case of cerebral palsy, but as you can probably tell by this thread, my mental faculties have gone unharmed. I find it absolutely mortifying that there are people who would deny life to "inviable" fetuses that are as developed as I was when I was born. If I can be born as early as I was with so small an effect, no fetuses late second trimester should ever be considered for an abortion. I can take it further still. I have a friend who has a much more severe case of cerebral palsy, and he was born 5 and a half months early. His mental capacity is fine but he's paraplegic and in a wheelchair. Should he have been killed to spare him from that? I say no. I have noticed that disabled people are some of the most humble and joyous despite their afflictions. They have much to contribute to the world.

Sorry for the rant, but I needed to get all of that off my chest. It's been bugging me all week. Feel free to focus on either the article or my monologue which accompanies.

[Traveler]

For me it is a matter of simple rhetorical logic when it comes to abortion and those that encourage abortion. Before I go into my concern allow me to give a little background. Our universe is vast. It is so large it is unthinkable. Some 20 years ago when the Hubble telescope discovered the first giant super cluster while focusing onto what was believed to be a far away very faint star. That little speck of light turned out to be (all by itself) bigger that we imagined the entire universe just 100 years ago.

Second important notion - with all the possibilities of our vast universe and the idea that we are not alone there has never been any, even the tiniest shred of evidence that there is anywhere in this universe intelligent life similar to life here on earth. Now I want all to hold these thoughts while I ask my question of concern.

What would ever posses and inspire a person to kill the one life form in all the universe most like them?

I understand that there is evil and choices between good and evil - but how can anyone address such a mentality as “good”. I cannot imagine a greater evil. My only hope in all this is that those that support such insanity really do not know what they are doing.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

POL, this is one of the debates of the ages. But the crux of the issue is this:

Whose agency gets precedence? the agency of the born and independently living woman, or the agency of the unborn and dependently living fetus/child/baby/whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-call-it?

It's a really, really tough question to answer, because denying the agency of either one is a sucky decision.

Legally (in the US), we favor the agency of the woman. Stewardship is given to her to make the decisions concerning her fetus. This happens to be why murder can be charged in the case of the fetus in the news story--it wasn't her decision to terminate the fetus.

You can also complicate the matter on which your question is premised with scenarios like, "what if the rape victim is a 13 year old girl? Should she be required to give up her life and future because of a decision she didn't make?" Make the adoption argument if you like, but a) there are 1.2 million abortions in the US each year and only 180,000 adoptions, and b) childbirth is dangerous*; more so for young women in the early stages of puberty.

Morally (in the Church), we also favor the agency of the woman. The exceptional cases in which the Church won't pursue disciplinary action for an abortion are incest (presumably sexual abuse), rape, likely death of the mother, and severe deformity the child that will probably result in death soon after childbirth. Notice that incest and rape are (usually) acts performed against the will of the woman. Since she was not part of the decision to engage in sexual intercourse, she is not held responsible for the consequences and not required to risk her life in child birth. In general, the mother is not expected to put her life in jeopardy if it is expected that she will not survive--that is, the Church accepts that a mother may choose life for herself over life for the child.

Regarding deformities, the Church only tolerates abortions if the deformity is likely to result in the death of the child soon after child birth. In some ways, this seems much like a cost/benefit analysis. We don't expect the mother to go through the whole process of pregnancy and child birth for a life she won't get to bond with.

In any case, the woman is the legal arbiter of life for a fetus. You may not like it, but that's where it stands right now, and it's hard to come up with an alternative that doesn't create an entirely different set of problems at least as bad as the problems resulting from the current set-up.

* Until the middle of the 20th century, childbirth was the leading cause of death among women. It still is in undeveloped countries. At one point, in the 19th century US, 40% of women died in child birth.

[Guest]

There is a very fundamental principle that needs to be put on the table here.

Man is body + spirit. Without the spirit, it is just a bunch of cells.

LDS believe in the pre mortal existence. The spirit JOINS the body sometime between conception and birth. The exact time of joining is of God's choosing, but is generally understood as the time of quickening - that is, around the time the fetus enters the 2nd trimester.

Catholics do not believe in pre mortal life. In Catholic belief, the spirit is created with the body at conception by God using man as His co-creators.

This difference in understanding is critical in these discussions. Because, in the Catholic perspective, there is no leeway. Miscarriage and abortion for any reason is termination of spiritual life. And termination with intent is murder. In Catholicism, you don't intentionally kill a fetus to save a mother's life because both lives have equal value... If the unintended consequence of the medical procedure to save life is the death of the fetus, then so be it. Rape is not a reason to kill spiritual life. The removal of the woman's agency doesn't negate the fact that God created life. God doesn't make mistakes, therefore, the presence of the fetus is God's will. This is the same for fetus with birth "defects".

The LDS belief in pre mortal life changes things. Because, the creation of the fetus doesn't necessarily mean God created life. Man's agency to be co-creators with God is paramount, so that if this agency is removed, spiritual life cannot form. If after a woman's agency is removed through rape, she conceives, she may decide to terminate the fetus before the spirit enters the body. If she decides to bring the fetus to spiritual life, then her agency remained intact. In any case, birth defects/woman's life in danger/rape/etc... The woman needs the counsel of the bishop who has the power of discernment - he can help discern if the life in the woman's body is spirit. Now, if a woman conceives having exercised her agency in the sex act and then decides to terminate a fetus in the first trimester, then that is a grave sin - not of murder, but of mocking the sanctity of the power of procreation granted by God to man.

So, as you can see, kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach causing the death of the unborn child is, at the very least, an act of manslaughter in the Catholic perspective. But it does not necessarily mean manslaughter in the LDS perspective because God chooses when the spirit enters the body of the fetus.

Hope this sheds some light on the discussion.

[RipplecutBuddha]

When we choose a path, we also choose the end of that path.

Each of our decisions has consequences, and many of those consequences have nothing at all to do with this life. Abortion is a very serious decision that is not often made with eternal consequences in mind. When it is considered seriously, the deliberations are heart-wrenching.

For my part, I would never encourage a woman to have an abortion unless three or more seriously experienced physicians advised it, and even then I would need confirmation through prayer that it was the correct decision. Having said that, there are other serious decisions I've made in my life that I didn't consider anywhere near long enough before pulling the trigger on a boneheaded choice.

In the end I am grateful for a loving Heavenly Father that allows us to live as we decide even though He knows what pain we cause ourselves in the process. Sometimes it's the only way we learn.

[Bini]

Being pregnant I'm already feeling this special bond with the child that's growing inside of me. The idea of losing her, from natural causes or having a termination, are just unfathomable to me. That said, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That doesn't mean I don't feel that some of the reasonings behind abortion aren't justifiable. To abort because you just weren't ready to be a mother and timing is super inconvenient to you, is not a good enough reason for me. I'm much more supporting of a woman that has tested positive for having a child with severe medical disabilities. It's easy to look from the outside in and say this or that but you can't possibly judge someone when you're NOT in their shoes. The Lord isn't blind. He knows where each and every one of our hearts are. He sees the difference between a selfish act and a merciful one. And sometimes (often times) we cannot clearly define the two apart.

[Dravin]

LDS believe in the pre mortal existence. The spirit JOINS the body sometime between conception and birth. The exact time of joining is of God's choosing, but is generally understood as the time of quickening - that is, around the time the fetus enters the 2nd trimester.

You seem to be implying that the second trimester thing is an LDS generally understood thing, did you mean to imply this or did you mean generally understood as in the US population at large or what have you? If you did mean to imply a general LDS understanding do you have a source?

[marshac]

I know I'm not a woman and so I'll never have any idea what pregnancy or labor is like, but I could never kill my child even if I died in the process, or even if we died together.

I can understand where you're coming from, but an ectopic pregnancy would be a pretty horrible way to die- also depending on where the egg implants, it's also not really a matter if, but when and how much you suffer before it's over.

This being the case- would you sanction an operation that would attempt to MOVE the embryo to a better location with the understanding that it might die in the process? At least in this scenario the mother doesn't needlessly (and painfully) die and the embryo at least has a chance to survive (it would have otherwise died).

We were tasked with writing our own Hippocratic oaths, and here's one line from mine-

I will never willingly take a life or assist in measures towards that end, regardless of age or infirmity, however I will not obstruct others from operating within the bounds of their own conscience.

I think you know where I stand on the issue now :)

[Guest]

You seem to be implying that the second trimester thing is an LDS generally understood thing, did you mean to imply this or did you mean generally understood as in the US population at large or what have you? If you did mean to imply a general LDS understanding do you have a source?

From science, the start of the 2nd trimester is the stage of development where the "quickening" occurs. Quickening is from general LDS understanding - not doctrine because there is no direct revelation on exactly when the spirit enters the body.

Here is a quote for you from the September 1987 issue of the Ensign:

“The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.” (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970, 4:205.)

President Brigham Young said he believed that “when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body.” (Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

It is not clear exactly at what point of development that “certain stage” of quickening—when the spirit makes eternal claim to the body—occurs. Even though quickening occurs before birth, we still do not know definitely when a living soul comes into existence.

Edited May 8, 2011 by anatess

[Dravin]

Quickening by the spirit isn't necessarily the same thing as quickening = baby moves, as scripturally it has different connotations. The middle quote does avoid possibly terminology conflation though.

[Guest]

Quickening by the spirit isn't necessarily the same thing as quickening = baby moves, as scripturally it has different connotations. The middle quote does avoid possibly terminology conflation though.

From the stuff I read on abortion in the LDS faith, I haven't seen a difference in the usage.

You have to understand, it is not doctrine. Just a general understanding. Some apostle, I can't quite remember who and I can't seem to find the Ensign article on it, mentions that the heart beats at 22 days and the blood flows at 26 days... although he doesn't say anything about it meaning that the spirit may dwell on the fetus then.

[Dravin]

From the stuff I read on abortion in the LDS faith, I haven't seen a difference in the usage.

When the scriptures (and pretty much every instance of that phrase or similar I've heard from a GA or indeed anyone else up to this point) talk about quickening they're talking about the infusion of life or spirit, not the point during the second trimester when the mother can feel movement. In fact that the term (quickening) can also be in reference to said point I wasn't aware of until this thread.

You have to understand, it is not doctrine. Just a general understanding.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that the phrase quickened by the spirit is generally talking about the spirit entering the body, it is not a direct reference to the fetus moving. Reading the first and third quotes I don't see any statement as to when the spirit enters the body, simply that at some point it does.

I read them as:

The first - At some point between germination and birth the spirit enters into the child's body. It's not a statement that the spirit enters into the body sometime during the second trimester.

The third - Even defines what it is talking about by quickening, it's talking about when the spirit enters the body. No statement about when that is, such as when the unborn child can be felt to move by its mother, is made.

You have to understand (and I note that this wasn't necessarily clear), I wasn't asking about the concept that at some point the spirit enters the mortal tabernacle, I was asking about it being at some point during the second trimester as something that is generally understood by LDS. Brigham's comment does however put it in that time frame. The other two, though they may use the same word that is used in reference to an event that occurs during the second trimester are not statements that the spirit enters into the body at that time.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Dravin

[PrinceofLight2000]

I can understand where you're coming from, but an ectopic pregnancy would be a pretty horrible way to die- also depending on where the egg implants, it's also not really a matter if, but when and how much you suffer before it's over.

This being the case- would you sanction an operation that would attempt to MOVE the embryo to a better location with the understanding that it might die in the process? At least in this scenario the mother doesn't needlessly (and painfully) die and the embryo at least has a chance to survive (it would have otherwise died).

We were tasked with writing our own Hippocratic oaths, and here's one line from mine-

I think you know where I stand on the issue now :)

Answer: Yes. Even if the embryo dies, its death wasn't the goal.

Edited May 9, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Guest]

When the scriptures (and pretty much every instance of that phrase or similar I've heard from a GA or indeed anyone else up to this point) talk about quickening they're talking about the infusion of life or spirit, not the point during the second trimester when the mother can feel movement. In fact that the term (quickening) can also be in reference to said point I wasn't aware of until this thread.*

I understand that. What I'm saying is that the phrase quickened by the spirit is generally talking about the spirit entering the body, it is not a direct reference to the fetus moving. Reading the first and third quotes I don't see any statement as to when the spirit enters the body, simply that at some point it does.

I read them as:

The first - At some point between germination and birth the spirit enters into the child's body. It's not a statement that the spirit enters into the body sometime during the second trimester.

The third - Even defines what it is talking about by quickening, it's talking about when the spirit enters the body. No statement about when that is, such as when the unborn child can be felt to move by its mother, is made.

You have to understand (and I note that this wasn't necessarily clear), I wasn't asking about the concept that at some point the spirit enters the mortal tabernacle, I was asking about it being at some point during the second trimester as something that is generally understood by LDS. Brigham's comment does however put it in that time frame. The other two, though they may use the same word that is used in reference to an event that occurs during the second trimester are not statements that the spirit enters into the body at that time.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I may have misunderstood the "general understanding". I just have always thought that was the case. I concede.

I reread my first post with the correction in mind and I think the whole thing still stands even with that change, right?

[Dravin]

Ok, I see what you're saying. I may have misunderstood the "general understanding". I just have always thought that was the case. I concede.

I reread my first post with the correction in mind and I think the whole thing still stands even with that change, right?

That a critical difference between the Catholic and LDS positions, namely when the spirit is present, being at conception versus later does indeed stand with either an unspecified or second trimester understanding.

[Guest]

That a critical difference between the Catholic and LDS positions, namely when the spirit is present, being at conception versus later does indeed stand with either an unspecified or second trimester understanding.

I also meant about how because of this LDS position, we wouldn't necessarily count the kicking of the stomach manslaughter?

[Dravin]

I also meant about how because of this LDS position, we wouldn't necessarily count the kicking of the stomach manslaughter?

While I understand the reasoning , that if the spirit isn't there then it isn't a taking of life, due to the fact that there isn't a doctrinal hard line about when that happens I think you'll find someone talking to their Bishop about performing such an act will receive a response that varies per Bishop. If you're talking about individuals, and not necessarily talking to a bishop, I think you'd see even more variety.

Interestingly enough, under the Law of Moses someone guilty of such would be brought to judgement and made to pay damages (Exodus 21:22). And the next verse, if the mother dies, it talks about giving life for life. Not that this is relevant mind you, it just popped into my head because of the subject.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

While I understand the reasoning , that if the spirit isn't there then it isn't a taking of life, due to the fact that there isn't a doctrinal hard line about when that happens I think you'll find someone talking to their Bishop about performing such an act will receive a response that varies per Bishop. If you're talking about individuals, and not necessarily talking to a bishop, I think you'd see even more variety.

Interestingly enough, under the Law of Moses someone guilty of such would be brought to judgement and made to pay damages (Exodus 21:22). And the next verse, if the mother dies, it talks about giving life for life. Not that this is relevant mind you, it just popped into my head because of the subject.

I hope this is not a thread hijack...

I've wondered a time or two if the spirit that has joined the body, could possibly decide to leave before he is born if the baby is going to be stillborn.... so then he'll have a chance to gain mortal existence through another body. I'm thinking that for an all-knowing God, He would know if the spirit should enter that particular fetus or not if mortal existence is necessary for that spirit, therefore, if the spirit is meant to be born, he wouldn't enter a fetus if it's going to be stillborn (how I process the birth defect scenario).

But, then, one thing that is not clear to me is why, in the temple, you may name a stillborn baby and seal him to your family even though you can't perform any baptisms/endowments for him.

Edited May 9, 2011 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

But, then, one thing that is not clear to me is why, in the temple, you may name a stillborn baby and seal him to your family even though you can't perform any baptisms/endowments for him.

My hypothesis is that it is permitted to allow the family some comfort in their grief. Church policy is clear that it is not known if such is necessary or required because we don't know when the spirit unites with the body.

As cold as it is to say, those sealing may or may not be honored in the eternities (it's also possible some will and some won't. I don't know).

[Just_A_Guy]

In the early days of the Church, there were those who believed that people who died as children remained (physically) children in the eternities. Perhaps the current temple policy is one of the last vestiges of that teaching?