For people of all faiths: How do you defend abortion in cases of rape or incest?

[Anddenex]

Remember that Catholic doctrine has no concept of an individual premortal life. Catholic theology teaches that not just physical life, but individual existence itself, begins at conception. This cannot but impact the overall perception of the evils of abortion.

Agreed.

[prisonchaplain]

As annewandering pointed out, the man who raped a woman has, actually according to a article I recently read, in 31 states the legal right for custody, and visitation rights, just as if the baby was conceived with consent.

If the rapist has parental rights, and the woman decided to give the baby up for adoption, then the rapist can appeal the adoption and take the child away.

Thus, the child may not have such a "loving home" to go to if the woman gives up her rights by adoption, and the rapist takes full custody of the child.

Morally? I believe the Church has it correctly in these cases -- we speak with our priesthood leaders, we speak with our Heavenly Father, if Heavenly Father gives his permission -- then all arguments are over.

I was pretty skeptical--and shocked--by the notion that a rapist could apply for visitation or custody. Apparently it's true. Shocking: Rapists Can Apply For Child Custody in 27 States

One key point is that the biggest opening for this horror is when the rape is not reported. Then the perpetrator can attempt to claim rights. Nevertheless, the solution is a change in these laws, not killing the baby.

[Vort]

I was pretty skeptical--and shocked--by the notion that a rapist could apply for visitation or custody. Apparently it's true. Shocking: Rapists Can Apply For Child Custody in 27 States

In part, this is because the law does not always distinguish between what is called "rape". If an 18.0-year-old boy impregnates his 15.9-year-old girlfriend, that's "rape". If a drunk frat guy gets a drunk sorority girl pregnant, that's "rape" (though it seems like the sorority chick raped the frat guy at least as much as the other way around).

As long as "rape" means "forcible rape", your outrage is justified. But when we accept the definition of "rape" as "any illegal sexual contact", it becomes a much different scenario. When sex is consensual (or mutually non-consensual) but is still classified as "rape", it does not seem at all unusual or unseemly to me that the father apply for his visitation rights.

[Backroads]

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

I doubt I wound defend this position or even try to. I'm not sure how I feel on the subject (though reading this thread has been quite insightful). I find abortion horrible no matter what the circumstances, yet I support the Church's policy.

All I know is that I wouldn't view a rape/incest victim who chose abortion like I would view anyone else who chose abortion.

[SteveVH]

I am only providing other scenarios in response to PCs post. As someone already pointed out, in the LDS theology we have not been given the exact moment he spirit enters the body of an embryo. If the spirit doesn't enter into the body, then no death sentence is given to any unborn child.

As others have said, I think our fundamental ideas concerning the origin of the human being make it difficult to be on the same page. For the sake of discussion, however, let's assume the Mormon position. If one does not know when the spirit enters the "body of an embryo" why would one not err on the side of life? What if you kill what is actually a child? If a small child slips into a well, we don't assume he or she is dead and just walk away. We do everything we can to save that life without knowing if there is even a life to save.

I would fully agree with changing the law, the law as it stands now is utterly disappointing -- rights of parentage to a rapist.

However, while those laws are in place, it appears you are asking others to live up to your expectations.

I think most agree that the child does not deserve a death sentence because there are unjust laws concerning its father.

Yes, I think it is very easy to judge a woman who has been raped by saying, "Listen, sweety, there is a possibility that you might not have a good life...I am just going to go ahead and kill you now."

I am only pointing out how outrageous it is that anyone would kill an unborn child because it might not have an ideal life, as if any of us can predict the future.

Yes, I highly doubt this is what is going through a woman's mind who has been raped.

And so do I. Just so you know, I make no judgments concerning a woman in this predicament. That is God's place, not mine. No one can no the horror of being raped who has never experienced it and I would say that her culpability in making any decision is greatly mitigated by this fact. What I can judge and must judge is the moral justification that society or any group of people give to taking the life of the unborn. We can and must name evil when we see it. That does not translate into condemnation of any particular individual in their own unique circumstances.

This, to me personally, is the language of a very self-righteous man.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Please note: I am more for woman to have the baby and place the baby up for adoption, or raise the child themselves

Wonderful.

however you won't find me using such a simple language to describe what is going on in the heart and mind of a woman who has been raped, hoping and praying she isn't pregnant, only to find out she is.

You have misunderstood me if you believe that is what I am doing.

This is false. Throw my mother-in-law into the middle of the lake and she will drown. Overly simplistic.

Do you understand that the metaphore assumes one can swim? Or are you saying that your mom can swim but would choose to drown? I think you completely missed the point.

God has everything to do with decisions which are moral or immoral. That is fine, you have your moral agency to choose to be skeptical, but your skepticism doesn't dictate the Lord did or did not confirm a decision.

I wonder then the cognitive dissonance you face when reading the Old Testament, when the God you profess to believe in commanded the Israelites to commit this "intrinsically evil nature of the act of killing an innocent."

I assume you are familiar with the genocide of the Egyptian's first born? Or was this not the killing of innocent children? The Lord killed innocent children, who had nothing to do with Pharoah's hard heart, yet they died as well. Yes, God easily has the ultimate decision as to when and when something is not moral.

I assume you are familiar with the record of the Lord commanding the Israelites to kill not only the man, but women and children, and the unborn child -- the innocent. How does your mind justify your statement, when we know in record the Lord has commanded what you would call"intrinsically evil" in nature?

The answer is pretty simple here. God is the author of life. He gives it and he takes it away according to his perfect will. This is God's prerogative, not man's. As far as man is concerned he has given us a very clear command: "Thou shalt not kill." Yes, God has commanded that entire populations die. I don't know how this enters into God's plan, only he does. But God has never commanded anyone to kill their own child except for once, a test of faithfulness, and then He sent an angel to stop it. But if you want to start throwing around Bible verses you should consider these along with those you have listed:

Exodus 23:7 - Do not kill the innocent and righteous.

Proverbs 6:16,17 - God hates hands that shed innocent blood.

Revelation 21:8; 22:15 - Murderers will be outside the holy city in the lake of fire.

Matthew 15:19,20 - Murder is a sin that proceeds from the heart and defiles he who commits it.

Romans 13:8-10 - If you love your neighbor, you will not kill. (Cf. Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; James 2:11.)

Here are some others if you are interested.

( Gen. 4:8-11; Jer. 7:5-7; 22:3; Joel 3:19; Hos. 4:1,2; Lev. 24:17,21; Ex. 21:12-15; 1 John 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:15.)

I believe God will recognize the heart of the individual, he will take into account more than what you simply provide, and will give his command, and if through consultation with their priesthood leaders, much prayer and fasting, and they receive an answer -- I won't be the one judging them. I however, may choose something different, but I am not them, and I wasn't the one in the room when the answer came.

If God commands a mother to kill her unborn child, then she should probably do it. I can say this because God will never do such a thing and any person that claims that God has told them to do this is not hearing the voice of God. I say this with all certainty.

Edited February 24, 2013 by StephenVH

[selek]

Stephen- what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

You asked how others defend abortion in the case of rape and incest.

Your question has been answered- and yet you continue to argue that the answers you were given are all wrong.

As several have stated- we are not embracing or endorsing these rationalizations.

On the one hand, we are not obliged to defend positions we do not hold.

On the other- we not under ANY obligation to justify ourselves to you- only to the Lord.

We as Latter-day Saints- and a the Latter-day Church- have decided that in rare cases such as rape and incest, a blanket rule is not advisable, wise, or even compassionate.

We leave it to the individual Saints to petition the Lord in humility and faith and determine the best course of action for themselves.

Lecture us all you like, but it is not we who must be convinced.

[SteveVH]

Remember that Catholic doctrine has no concept of an individual premortal life. Catholic theology teaches that not just physical life, but individual existence itself, begins at conception. This cannot but impact the overall perception of the evils of abortion.

Great observation. I have said for a long time that many of our differences have their origin in how we view the beginning of human life. Thanks for pointing this out.

[SteveVH]

In part, this is because the law does not always distinguish between what is called "rape". If an 18.0-year-old boy impregnates his 15.9-year-old girlfriend, that's "rape". If a drunk frat guy gets a drunk sorority girl pregnant, that's "rape" (though it seems like the sorority chick raped the frat guy at least as much as the other way around).

As long as "rape" means "forcible rape", your outrage is justified. But when we accept the definition of "rape" as "any illegal sexual contact", it becomes a much different scenario. When sex is consensual (or mutually non-consensual) but is still classified as "rape", it does not seem at all unusual or unseemly to me that the father apply for his visitation rights.

Another great point! It would be interesting to see the details of these laws and if each situation is weighed in this light.

[prisonchaplain]

Stephen- what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

You asked how others defend abortion in the case of rape and incest.

Your question has been answered- and yet you continue to argue that the answers you were given are all wrong.

As several have stated- we are not embracing or endorsing these rationalizations.

On the one hand, we are not obliged to defend positions we do not hold.

On the other- we not under ANY obligation to justify ourselves to you- only to the Lord.

We as Latter-day Saints- and a the Latter-day Church- have decided that in rare cases such as rape and incest, a blanket rule is not advisable, wise, or even compassionate.

We leave it to the individual Saints to petition the Lord in humility and faith and determine the best course of action for themselves.

Lecture us all you like, but it is not we who must be convinced.

Perhaps the Church has chosen not to take an official stand prohibiting the choice of abortion in cases of rape or incest...but does it stop individual members from discerning that it is wrong even in such cases? One step further, does the Church's neutrality prevent an individual member from saying offering personal counsel that abortion is killing always? Perhaps the OP is hoping to sway some here to adapt that position on a personal level.

[selek]

Perhaps the Church has chosen not to take an official stand prohibiting the choice of abortion in cases of rape or incest...but does it stop individual members from discerning that it is wrong even in such cases?

Of course not- but see below.

One step further, does the Church's neutrality prevent an individual member from saying offering personal counsel that abortion is killing always? Perhaps the OP is hoping to sway some here to adapt that position on a personal level.

Unless such a person is personally involved or specifically ASKED for such an opinion, it would be the height of chutzpah and even arrogance to intrude.

Unsolicted advice is seldom welcome- particularly in so personal and painful a circumstance.

This decision is a matter of considerable privacy- and for the faithful Latter-day Saint- one of considerable pain.

It is not something to be bantered about with Mrs Kravitch, Aunt Ethel, or Joe the Barber.

Someone exercising that degree of intrusive meddling in my family's private affairs- without an explicit invitation- would receive a firm but clear, "BUTT OUT!"- followed as necessary by a free ride on the first boot out the door.

Even assuming that your guess is correct, however, the problem remains:

Steven started the conversation with a question, but is now lecturing us about how the answers he received are all "wrong".

That's preaching, not inquiring.

That's proselyting, not discussion.

He's gone from asking a question to making a sales pitch.

That behavior is made considerably more annoying by the fact that no one here actually disagrees with the notion that abortion is wrong- let alone expressed such a notion.

We understand his position- and most of us agree with it.

So why is he flogging a dead horse, if not to "cry repentance" unto a God-fearing people for the heinous sin of not thinking exactly the way he does?

Edited February 24, 2013 by selek

[SteveVH]

Stephen- what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

You asked how others defend abortion in the case of rape and incest.

Your question has been answered- and yet you continue to argue that the answers you were given are all wrong.

You know, I suppose I could ask the question and never respond to the posts on the thread I started. One learns by asking questions. I have seen at least one post on this thread where the person has found this discussion enlightening so apparently it has done someone some good. In addition, this thread was addressed to people of all faiths, not just Mormons, so I don't think it is fair to conclude that the question has been asked and answered - end of discussion. I am aware that there are some who do not want this to be discussed at all. No one has a gun to their head.

As several have stated- we are not embracing or endorsing these rationalizations.

That is not entirely true but I agree for the most part.

On the one hand, we are not obliged to defend positions we do not hold.

Have I asked anyone to defend a position they don't hold?

On the other- we not under ANY obligation to justify ourselves to you- only to the Lord.

Then don't.

We as Latter-day Saints- and a the Latter-day Church- have decided that in rare cases such as rape and incest, a blanket rule is not advisable, wise, or even compassionate.

Yes, I have gathered that.

We leave it to the individual Saints to petition the Lord in humility and faith and determine the best course of action for themselves.

Lecture us all you like, but it is not we who must be convinced.

I am just really blown away that some are so adverse to any debate whatsoever. I was instructed very specifically to come to the Christian Beliefs Board if there was to be any debate. So that is what I have done and then I am accused of lecturing you when in fact it is you who have just lectured me. If you don't like the debate then please do yourself a favor and don't participate. If you would like to join in you are more than welcome.

[selek]

I am just really blown away that some are so adverse to any debate whatsoever.

And I am just really blown away with the knee-jerk reaction that people have when called on their arrogance and presumption.

"Contradiction" is NOT "persecution", and trying to determine what it is that you're actually trying to achieve is NOT "avoiding debate".

At this point in the conversation, there IS no debate. We are in agreement that abortion is a terribly malignant thing, and a tragedy in nearly all circumstances.

The only remaining "difference of opinion" is the idea that others might legitimately think differently than you do.

You, however, seem determined to force us "to all sing from your hymnal."

That sort of absolutism and moral preening is proselyting, not conversation.

Debate is an exchange and analysis of ideas involving different positions.

It is NOT you judging and finding us wanting for the crime of not being as "enlightened" as you are.

I was instructed very specifically to come to the Christian Beliefs Board if there was to be any debate.

This is still, in point of fact, a board dedicated to explaining and supporting Latter-day Saint theology.

It is not- and never will be- your private soapbox from which to brow-beat us with the Gospel According to StephenVH.

So that is what I have done and then I am accused of lecturing you when in fact it is you who have just lectured me.

On the contrary, I asked what you hoped to obtain here- and then explained why I found the guesses of others to be wanting.

Isn't that exactly what you claim to be doing?

Two things come to mind:

The first is to remind you of Luke 4:18

"18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath annointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captive, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,"

We already agree that abortion is wrong- so why not save your ministering for those actually in need of it?

The second is, "Physician, heal thyself."

You didn't answer my question about what it is you hope to obtain- you simply accused me (falsely) of trying to silence you.

Edited February 24, 2013 by selek

[SteveVH]

And I am just really blown away with the knee-jerk reaction that people have when called on their arrogance and presumption.

"Contradiction" is NOT "persecution", and trying to determine what it is that you're actually trying to achieve is NOT "avoiding debate".

At this point in the conversation, there IS no debate. We are in agreement that abortion is a terribly malignant thing, and a tragedy in nearly all circumstances.

The only difference is the idea that others might think differently than you do.

You, however, seem determined to force us "to all sing from your hymnal."

That sort of absolutism and moral preening is proselyting, not conversation.

Debate is an exchange and analysis of ideas involving different positions.

It is NOT you judging and finding us wanting for the crime of not being as "enlightened" as you are.

This is still, in point of fact, a board dedicated to explaining and supporting Latter-day Saint theology.

It is not- and never will be- your private soapbox from which to brow-beat us with the Gospel According to StephenVH.

On the contrary, I asked what you hoped to obtain here- and then explained why I found the guesses of others to be wanting.

Isn't that exactly what you claim to be doing?

Two things come to mind:

The first is to remind you of Luke 4:18

"18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath annointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captive, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,"

We already agree that abortion is wrong- so why not save your ministering for those actually in need of it?

The second is, "Physician, heal thyself."

You didn't answer my question about what it is you hope to obtain- you simply accused me (falsely) of trying to silence you.

If you have something to say on the topic why don't you join us. If you just want to attack me personally then PM me rather than derailing the thread. Thanks.

[skippy740]

StephenVH -

If you feel that a post is attacking you, I will direct you to report the post using the button to the moderating team.

This is an LDS forum, and a Christian Beliefs sub-forum. You are seeking debate on the LDS Church's position on abortion and asking forum members to justify the LDS Church's position on the topic.

Therefore, as this thread has been taken off-topic for the sub-forum...

Thread closed.