Is contraception immoral...

[Guest]

No further detail into the reasoning behind allowing abortion seems to be present, so I'm left wondering if that is an open question, or if it's addressed in greater detail elsewhere.

 

Regarding this one...

 

Yes, there is no further detail because "allowing abortion" is on an individual basis as discerned by the Bishop.

 

But, such an allowance does not compromise the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life due to... everything I said about pre-mortality (as opposed to ex nihilo).

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy's post meanwhile seemed to indicate that the fetus definitely has a human soul, and that the justification for abortion was akin to self-defense, in that the mother may do so if her life or emotional well-being are on the line.

 

I apologize for not adequately representing my position.  My post was intended to be agnostic as to whether a fetus has a soul or not; and merely pointing out that even if we grant that life begins at conception (a position the LDS Church has not definitively taken), there still might be specific scenarios where an abortion might be seen as at least justifiable (though I would hasten to add that even under the most justifiable of circumstances, abortion is nothing less than a tragedy).

[2ndRateMind]

Is contraception immoral? No.

 

Is reckless reproduction immoral, given the finite resource limits of the planet? Yes.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

Is contraception immoral? No.

 

Is reckless reproduction immoral, given the finite resource limits of the planet? Yes.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

You must have missed CatholicLady's first post.

[Claire]

Thanks for the clarifications guys.

 

I also feel like I should weigh in a bit on why Catholics are so sure the fetus does have a soul. Catholic theologians tend not to view souls in quite the same way that they are normally imagined. Rather, we tend to utilize Aristotelian metaphysics. In Aristotelian metaphysics, everything is a composition of prime matter and substantial form. Neither of the two can exist independently of one-another (with one exception I'll get to shortly). Prime matter is basically the raw material, the stuff that its made out of. Substantial form is the ordering principle of the thing, it's what makes the thing what it is. Put the two together, and you get a substance. A substance is what a thing is. For example, I am a human because the prime matter that makes me up has the substantial form of human. You can also have accidents, which are traits that do not change what the thing is. If I have brown hair, red hair, or blue hair, those are all accidental. I'm still a human.

 

Anyway, there's a special name for the substantial form of a living thing: the soul. Anything that's alive, from trees to human, has a soul. They have different kinds of soul depending on what they are, and human souls differ radically in kind from other souls. The point is, if a living thing exists, by definition it absolutely has to have a soul.

 

As I mentioned, there is one exception to the whole substantial form and prime matter having to exist together rule: human souls. When other living things dies, their souls are annihilated and the prime matter that made them up assumes the substantial forms of the individual bits and pieces that make up the corpse. With humans, while the prime matter that made up our bodies still assumes a new substantial form, our souls persist independently of our physical bodies. This is not necessarily a good thing. We were made to have bodies, and we aren't really complete without them, which is why the resurrection remains a very important part of Catholic theology (while some protestant denominations are happy with being a soul in heaven).

 

The more common understanding of he soul as a spirit within the body largely has its roots in Cartesian philosophy, and has pretty much carried over to most moder philosophies.

 

Getting back on topic, again, if a living thing exists, it absolutely positively has to have a soul (again, by the Catholic understanding of what the soul is). Once that's established, once we acknowledge that the fetus is a human child, we have to acknowledge that aborting it is the killing of an innocent child. Hence the Catholic Church's stance that abortion is always a sin.

[PolarVortex]

Many scientific materialists like to claim that the physical body exists and the soul is an illusion (and some would even claim that consciousness is a disease).

 

I rather like to think that the soul exists and the physical body is an illusion.  It would explain much.  

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks for the clarifications guys.

 

I also feel like I should weigh in a bit on why Catholics are so sure the fetus does have a soul. Catholic theologians tend not to view souls in quite the same way that they are normally imagined. Rather, we tend to utilize Aristotelian metaphysics. In Aristotelian metaphysics, everything is a composition of prime matter and substantial form. Neither of the two can exist independently of one-another (with one exception I'll get to shortly). Prime matter is basically the raw material, the stuff that its made out of. Substantial form is the ordering principle of the thing, it's what makes the thing what it is. Put the two together, and you get a substance. A substance is what a thing is. For example, I am a human because the prime matter that makes me up has the substantial form of human. You can also have accidents, which are traits that do not change what the thing is. If I have brown hair, red hair, or blue hair, those are all accidental. I'm still a human.

 

Anyway, there's a special name for the substantial form of a living thing: the soul. Anything that's alive, from trees to human, has a soul. They have different kinds of soul depending on what they are, and human souls differ radically in kind from other souls. The point is, if a living thing exists, by definition it absolutely has to have a soul.

 

As I mentioned, there is one exception to the whole substantial form and prime matter having to exist together rule: human souls. When other living things dies, their souls are annihilated and the prime matter that made them up assumes the substantial forms of the individual bits and pieces that make up the corpse. With humans, while the prime matter that made up our bodies still assumes a new substantial form, our souls persist independently of our physical bodies. This is not necessarily a good thing. We were made to have bodies, and we aren't really complete without them, which is why the resurrection remains a very important part of Catholic theology (while some protestant denominations are happy with being a soul in heaven).

 

The more common understanding of he soul as a spirit within the body largely has its roots in Cartesian philosophy, and has pretty much carried over to most moder philosophies.

 

Getting back on topic, again, if a living thing exists, it absolutely positively has to have a soul (again, by the Catholic understanding of what the soul is). Once that's established, once we acknowledge that the fetus is a human child, we have to acknowledge that aborting it is the killing of an innocent child. Hence the Catholic Church's stance that abortion is always a sin.

 

If I understand you correctly, then; the fact that a living fetus exists, is prima facie evidence that it has a soul.  Other living things have souls, but their souls are by design ephemeral--they are utterly destroyed at death, and their deaths represent no great loss to the plan of the Creator--whereas the human soul lasts through eternity; and that's why killing humans (and fetuses) is such a grave sin.

 

Am I right?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Apropos of nothing in particular, just informational:

 

Catholic theologians tend not to view souls in quite the same way that they are normally imagined. Rather, we tend to utilize Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

In fact, Catholicism is built largely upon such neo-Platonic philosophies as Aristotelian metaphysics. This is an example of what we Latter-day Saints refer to as "the great apostasy". Primitive Christians knew nothing of Aristotle and, believing in revalatory truth, would have laughed at the suggestion that an ancient Greek pagan should be sought as a font of religious knowledge. Latter-day Saints tend to take that same viewpoint.

[2ndRateMind]

You must have missed CatholicLady's first post.

 

 

Hmmm. Is there then an LDS morality, distinct from objective, ordinary morality?

 

Best, 2RM.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, they're one and the same.  It's just that non-Mormons don't understand that yet. 

 

Seriously--the OP is asking specifically about Mormon teachings, and she is being answered in kind.  You are welcome to start another thread on whether income inequality is or should be universally acknowledged as a moral ill, if you wish; but as a matter of courtesy to the OP let's keep this particular thread semi-topical.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

If you interested in the rationale behind the LDS Church's list of potential exceptions regarding abortion, reviewing the commonalities among the exceptions.

 

Rape and incest share the non-consensual aspect of sexual intercourse.  The mother did not choose to engage in the act that resulted in the pregnancy, and so she is not being required to bring the additional life into hers with all of the baggage (sorry, there's probably a better term) that comes with children.

 

The medical exceptions have some element of choice as well.  Presumably, a mother did not intend to die in the course of bringing a child into the world.  Nor does any parent choose a pregnancy with deformities and illnesses.  There is also a practical aspect in these exceptions where the Church recognizes that a family that loses its mother is likely in worse shape than a family that loses a pregnancy.  Also, pragmatically, a child that dies in birth presents enormous disadvantages to the family it would have joined; expenses of medical care, emotional tolls*, and even the birthing process comes with many potential dangers.  When the child isn't expected to survive birth, medically speaking, we usually recommend abortion because it is a) safer for the mother, and b )less costly to the family.

 

Ultimately, in my mind, the Church's position on abortion is completely consistent with its focus on building and developing families.  (Even if that family is the family that hasn't come together yet because the rape victim is only 17 years old).

 

 

* remember, marriages in which a child dies very commonly fall apart, though I doubt the rate is as high among still born and birth related deaths.

Edited January 15, 2015 by MarginOfError

[Just_A_Guy]

MoE, where would you draw the line in terms of justifiable abortion because of unexpected deformities/illnesses in the fetus itself?  I mean, certainly something that makes the child non-viable or threatens the mother; but couldn't the argument of "the decision to conceive didn't contemplate this development, so abortion is acceptable in this pregnancy" be used to justify the abortion of fetuses that are discovered to be missing a digit, or likely to have CF, or having Down's Syndrome, or carrying a genetic sequence that corresponds to homosexuality?  How do we separate "life is hard, and you deal with it" from "dude--I didn't bargain for THIS!!!"

[MarginOfError]

MoE, where would you draw the line in terms of justifiable abortion because of unexpected deformities/illnesses in the fetus itself?  I mean, certainly something that makes the child non-viable or threatens the mother; but couldn't the argument of "the decision to conceive didn't contemplate this development, so abortion is acceptable in this pregnancy" be used to justify the abortion of fetuses that are discovered to be missing a digit, or likely to have CF, or having Down's Syndrome, or carrying a genetic sequence that corresponds to homosexuality?  How do we separate "life is hard, and you deal with it" from "dude--I didn't bargain for THIS!!!"

 

That's a good question, JAG.  Where do I draw the line?  

 

I don't.  That's the sole purview of the mother/father/parents/family/whatever involved in the situation with the guidance of the Lord and counsel of their priesthood leaders.  

 

I don't say that to be evasive (well, okay, I am trying a little to evade the question), but there are just too many factors involved.  I can't possibly weigh all of them for any person but myself.

 

I was on this kind of discussion with a woman in my ward recently. Her sister has six children.  The sixth was born with cerebral palsy and has been wheelchair bound his entire life.  And it's taken a huge toll on the entire family.  He's now 16 years old and facing the decline into death, having already lived the best of his years.  It's been 16 years of crappy quality of life for him, and substandard quality of life for his family (his mom especially).  

 

Now, I'm not saying I think they should have aborted, nor am I saying that parents in a similar situation now should abort.  What I will say is this: no matter what choice the family makes, I will stand by them whole-heartedly and support them.  Because I get it.  I can sympathize with the devastating despair they face in the situation.  And whether they choose to abort or not, they're going to need as many unconditional friendships as they can get to heal from whatever tragedy they choose.

 

If I'm their bishop or stake president, I might have to make a more formal judgement.  But even that I will delay until the last possible moment I have to.  

 

To me, it isn't about what is 'the right answer' or 'the wrong answer.' (moral relativism at it's best?)  It's about making sure that the family members all have a fair shot achieving their eternal potential.  And unless I'm a part of that family, I don't have any privilege to know what action will accomplish that goal.

[CatholicLady]

Thanks everyone!

I'm a little dissapointed to hear that there appear to be circumstances where abortions may be permissable in the Mormon religion, but I guess that's just one of the differences between Mormons and Catholics.

 

The Mormon views on contraception make a lot of sense though. I do think the Catholic Church is a little too strict on those, and prefer the Mormon views on that.  :)   

[Vort]

Thanks everyone!

I'm a little dissapointed to hear that there appear to be circumstances where abortions may be permissable in the Mormon religion, but I guess that's just one of the differences between Mormons and Catholics.

 

The idea of something being "religiously permissible" is, to be frank, a Catholic-leaning idea, and not really very comfortable in a Mormon setting. We believe in gaining truth from God. We learn important principles from his kingdom (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but the deep truths are learned only through revelation and in no other way. So that the kingdom of God might "allow" abortions in some instances is really of no consequence in Mormon thought, because the Church does not determine morality. We bow to the Priesthood authority of the Church because it is God's authority; but it is God, not the Church, who makes eternal judgments. The Church acts as an arbiter in fairly restricted circumstances. I daresay there are a great many Mormons who, though they live in compliance with Church laws and rules, perhaps even enough to gain entrance to the holy temple, are not living in harmony with the Spirit of God, and will be cast off at the last day if they do not repent.

 

This is an example of difference in thought patterns between Catholics and Mormons. Another is the idea of "sin", which in Catholicism is specific and concrete, but in LDS thought is much more fluid and situational. Even "non-sinful" things can be very "sinful" in different situations. I realize that Catholics grant this rather obvious point, but in my experience, there is a real and tangible difference in perception of "sin" between the two groups. You do sometimes hear Mormons asking "is thus-and-such a sin?", but not nearly as often, and in my experience, that question mostly comes from young and/or inactive Mormons.

[Guest]

That's a good question, JAG.  Where do I draw the line?  

 

I don't.  That's the sole purview of the mother/father/parents/family/whatever involved in the situation with the guidance of the Lord and counsel of their priesthood leaders.  

 

I don't say that to be evasive (well, okay, I am trying a little to evade the question), but there are just too many factors involved.  I can't possibly weigh all of them for any person but myself.

 

I was on this kind of discussion with a woman in my ward recently. Her sister has six children.  The sixth was born with cerebral palsy and has been wheelchair bound his entire life.  And it's taken a huge toll on the entire family.  He's now 16 years old and facing the decline into death, having already lived the best of his years.  It's been 16 years of crappy quality of life for him, and substandard quality of life for his family (his mom especially).  

 

Now, I'm not saying I think they should have aborted, nor am I saying that parents in a similar situation now should abort.  What I will say is this: no matter what choice the family makes, I will stand by them whole-heartedly and support them.  Because I get it.  I can sympathize with the devastating despair they face in the situation.  And whether they choose to abort or not, they're going to need as many unconditional friendships as they can get to heal from whatever tragedy they choose.

 

If I'm their bishop or stake president, I might have to make a more formal judgement.  But even that I will delay until the last possible moment I have to.  

 

To me, it isn't about what is 'the right answer' or 'the wrong answer.' (moral relativism at it's best?)  It's about making sure that the family members all have a fair shot achieving their eternal potential.  And unless I'm a part of that family, I don't have any privilege to know what action will accomplish that goal.

 

I don't agree with this.  Of course, our role when faced with a person/family undergoing such challenges is not to judge but to support.  But, like all things, we can support without having to agree.

 

If life was simply a matter of doing what is best for one's path in life and avoid/eliminate the "things we didn't bargain for", then the Plan of Salvation is a failure.

 

Also, the quality of life of a person with cerebral palsy is not dictated by the condition of his mortal body but his standing as a Child of God in righteousness and how he has accomplished his purposes.  What could be God's purposes for allowing Cerebral Palsy to exist in mortality?  I see one reason very simply - that whoever that child touches can exercise service and compassion at the highest level.  Terminating its existence neither allows for service nor compassion but simply self aggrandizement.

 

But this is my opinion and my opinion alone...

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

The idea of something being "religiously permissible" is, to be frank, a Catholic-leaning idea, and not really very comfortable in a Mormon setting. We believe in gaining truth from God. We learn important principles from his kingdom (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but the deep truths are learned only through revelation and in no other way. So that the kingdom of God might "allow" abortions in some instances is really of no consequence in Mormon thought, because the Church does not determine morality. We bow to the Priesthood authority of the Church because it is God's authority; but it is God, not the Church, who makes eternal judgments. The Church acts as an arbiter in fairly restricted circumstances. I daresay there are a great many Mormons who, though they live in compliance with Church laws and rules, perhaps even enough to gain entrance to the holy temple, are not living in harmony with the Spirit of God, and will be cast off at the last day if they do not repent.

 

This is an example of difference in thought patterns between Catholics and Mormons. Another is the idea of "sin", which in Catholicism is specific and concrete, but in LDS thought is much more fluid and situational. Even "non-sinful" things can be very "sinful" in different situations. I realize that Catholics grant this rather obvious point, but in my experience, there is a real and tangible difference in perception of "sin" between the two groups. You do sometimes hear Mormons asking "is thus-and-such a sin?", but not nearly as often, and in my experience, that question mostly comes from young and/or inactive Mormons.

 

 

Vort, thank you for this.  You are both nice and wise.  If FunkyTown would hand over the internet, you deserve to own it.

[Vort]

Vort, thank you for this.  You are both nice and wise.  If FunkyTown would hand over the internet, you deserve to own it.

 

You know me well enough not to believe this, but thank you for the kind compliment.

[MarginOfError]

What could be God's purposes for allowing Cerebral Palsy to exist in mortality?  I see one reason very simply - that whoever that child touches can exercise service and compassion at the highest level.  Terminating its existence neither allows for service nor compassion but simply self aggrandizement.

 

The crux of our disagreement probably comes down to this.  I don't think God has any purpose for allowing Cerbral Palsy to exist.  It just does.  Welcome to the world of stochastic processes.

 

(and if you ask my why God allows nature to work in stochastic processes, my answer will be that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run)

 

 

 

 

But, like all things, we can support without having to agree.

 

Also, on this, I find it easy to stand by and support the individual in whatever choice the make precisely because I don't agree.  The thing is, neither do I disagree.  I've chosen to be a neutral third party observer, because I find the words "I don't know what decision I would have made in your situation and I hope I never have to" to be much more comforting than "I would have done...."

[CatholicLady]

If I understand you correctly, then; the fact that a living fetus exists, is prima facie evidence that it has a soul.  Other living things have souls, but their souls are by design ephemeral--they are utterly destroyed at death, and their deaths represent no great loss to the plan of the Creator--whereas the human soul lasts through eternity; and that's why killing humans (and fetuses) is such a grave sin.

 

Am I right?

 

Yes, you are correct.

[Guest]

The crux of our disagreement probably comes down to this.  I don't think God has any purpose for allowing Cerbral Palsy to exist.  It just does.  Welcome to the world of stochastic processes.

 

(and if you ask my why God allows nature to work in stochastic processes, my answer will be that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run)

 

Yes.  That is definitely where we start to Y into different positions.  I take any single thing in this mortal earth - thing, event, situation... as all interconnected in the complex pattern of Creation.  And with that I find support in 2 Nephi 2 where something on earth is there either to act or be acted upon.  Because, without such things as CP that can be acted upon, we would be limited on what we CAN act upon...

[CatholicLady]

The idea of something being "religiously permissible" is, to be frank, a Catholic-leaning idea, and not really very comfortable in a Mormon setting. We believe in gaining truth from God. We learn important principles from his kingdom (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but the deep truths are learned only through revelation and in no other way. So that the kingdom of God might "allow" abortions in some instances is really of no consequence in Mormon thought, because the Church does not determine morality. We bow to the Priesthood authority of the Church because it is God's authority; but it is God, not the Church, who makes eternal judgments. The Church acts as an arbiter in fairly restricted circumstances. I daresay there are a great many Mormons who, though they live in compliance with Church laws and rules, perhaps even enough to gain entrance to the holy temple, are not living in harmony with the Spirit of God, and will be cast off at the last day if they do not repent.

 

This is an example of difference in thought patterns between Catholics and Mormons. Another is the idea of "sin", which in Catholicism is specific and concrete, but in LDS thought is much more fluid and situational. Even "non-sinful" things can be very "sinful" in different situations. I realize that Catholics grant this rather obvious point, but in my experience, there is a real and tangible difference in perception of "sin" between the two groups. You do sometimes hear Mormons asking "is thus-and-such a sin?", but not nearly as often, and in my experience, that question mostly comes from young and/or inactive Mormons.

Hmm...

I guess I didn't word myself very well. As Catholics, we too believe that morality comes from God and Truth, not made up from a religion. It just seems we have different opinions on what that "Truth" is in regards to the morality of abotion, that's all I meant.  :)  

[estradling75]

Hmm...

I guess I didn't word myself very well. As Catholics, we too believe that morality comes from God and Truth, not made up from a religion. It just seems we have different opinions on what that "Truth" is in regards to the morality of abotion, that's all I meant.  :)

 

Please note that all that has been said about our Churches response is that they will not do anything to a member who chooses to have an abortion under a very limited set of circumstances.  That is a far cry from saying go ahead.

 

As for truth... The truth is the commandment is "Thou shall not Kill"  Yet in the scriptures there are plenty of instances were the Lord commands "Kill".  Clearly the Lord himself can grant exceptions to the Law or Truth if he wishes and that is precisely the path the LDS Church advises these people who find themselves in this situation to take.    

[CatholicLady]

Please note that all that has been said about our Churches response is that they will not do anything to a member who chooses to have an abortion under a very limited set of circumstances.  That is a far cry from saying go ahead.

 

As for truth... The truth is the commandment is "Thou shall not Kill"  Yet in the scriptures there are plenty of instances were the Lord commands "Kill".  Clearly the Lord himself can grant exceptions to the Law or Truth if he wishes and that is precisely the path the LDS Church advises these people who find themselves in this situation to take.    

Yes, we too believe that the Lord grants exceptions to the commandment thou shall not kill. But I think we understand those exceptions to be a little different, though very close it seems, to what you believe.

We believe that the only time it is "acceptable" to kill is in cases of self defense and in justifiable war. When you are being attacked by an aggressor, you have the right to exert only as much force as is necessary to protect yourself from that aggressor. If that amount of force results in the aggressor being killed, you are not held accountable by God. The way we see it, since an unborn baby is innocent, he or she is not considered an "aggressor" even if a pregnant woman's life is at risk. Therefore it would still be wrong to kill him. Since his life and his mother's life are both worth the same, it wouldn't be justifiable to kill one in order to save the other, or vice versa.

The only time we consider anything close to an abortion to ever be ok is in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. The damaged fellopian tube must be removed, which thus tragically results in the baby's death. In this case the baby's death is an unfortunate consequence, not the intended outcome. Oh, and also in cases where a pregnant woman has cancer, she is free to seek chemotherapy to treat her cancer. Even though this may result in the death of her baby, it is an unfortunate consequence of her cancer treatment, rather than a deliberate act to take the baby's life. 

With all that being said, we srongly believe that though we can talk about acts being objectively moral or immoral, we cannot speculate on the state of the person's soul who commits an immoral act. So if a woman has an abortion, we cannot automatically assume that she will go to Hell. Her culpability may be greatly lessened due to things like fear, desperation, mental instability, ignorance, etc etc... and only God can judge that part.

Thank you for the interesting discussion, folks! :)    

[The Folk Prophet]

(and if you ask my why God allows nature to work in stochastic processes, my answer will be that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run)

 

Apparently your view of "all-powerful" (or "omnipotent", if you prefer) differs from mine. The idea that God allows horrible things to happen and exist if they just happen to randomly exist is because He's too busy to be bothered...? Hmm.