Pro-Life... with Exceptions

[Guest]

A question that was repeatedly brought up in yesterday's prime-time GOP debates was the Pro-Life position that is considered "extremist" because it doesn't come with exceptions.

 

Megan Kelly stated that 83% of Pro-Life women prefer an exception when the life of the mother is in danger and she pointed out that at least one of the GOP nominees did not agree with that exception.  The nominee asked the question, in my opinion, did not answer the question but evaded it.

 

I am not anywhere close to far right but I do understand this "extremist" Pro-Life as I was a Catholic.  I'm going to take this opportunity to explain this viewpoint to those who believe that the Spirit is created with the Body at conception (every Christian denomination except for LDS).

 

If life starts at conception and basic human right to life is granted by God and not the constitution, then the only possible position one can have is this extremist Pro-life position.  Life has value without conditions or exceptions.  Putting an exception to a Pro-Life position basically declares that an innocent life has value EXCEPT when it doesn't...

 

But, but, but... what about if the life of the mother is at stake, which may be the case with rape/incest when the mother's psychological health puts her life in danger as well as when the conditions of pregnancy puts the mother's life at death's door?  Are you saying then that you can't abort the baby even in this condition?

 

This is better answered with a clear example - let's say a mother and a child is standing at the door of a burning airplane at 30,000 feet.  The pilot is holding the last parachute and it can only save one of them.  When he makes the command decision to hand the mother the parachute, this is not a decision that declares that the child's life is only valuable except when him and his mother are going down the burning plane with only one parachute.  Rather, it is a command decision in acknowledgement that in the course of human history, it is the reality that we cannot save everybody.

 

Therefore, a Pro-Life stance that refuses to acknowledge an exception is a stance that states that a fetus has the same value as an adult human being without exceptions.  This stance does not negate the reality that in cases where lives are at stake, we don't need an exception to acknowledge the reality that we cannot save everybody and if a baby dies as we save the mother, then that is all we can do.

 

[Vort]

Therefore, a Pro-Life stance that refuses to acknowledge an exception is a stance that states that a fetus has the same value as an adult human being without exceptions.  This stance does not negate the reality that in cases where lives are at stake, we don't need an exception to acknowledge the reality that we cannot save everybody and if a baby dies as we save the mother, then that is all we can do.

 

A reasonable stance, but one to which very few (myself included) would subscribe. I suspect the large majority would agree that it is better to have one die to save another than to have both die.

[Just_A_Guy]

Anatess, I don't quite understand your last paragraph.  Are you explaining why the hard-right position is defensible, or are you explaining why the hard-right position is flawed?

[Backroads]

Politically speaking, I'd take pro-life with exceptions. But the more I ponder this, morally I'm quite far right. I get it.

[Guest]

A reasonable stance, but one to which very few (myself included) would subscribe. I suspect the large majority would agree that it is better to have one die to save another than to have both die.

 

I don't understand what you're saying.  There was nothing in my post that said that it is better to have both die.  Rather, I stated plainly that you don't need to have an exception to the value of life to be able to make the command decision to save one life and not another.

[Guest]

Anatess, I don't quite understand your last paragraph.  Are you explaining why the hard-right position is defensible, or are you explaining why the hard-right position is flawed?

 

Hard-right as, not only defensible, but the only acceptable position for non-LDS Christians who believe that Spiritual Life Begins at Conception.

 

The LDS folks are the only ones that can declare that the value of life has exceptions - because the LDS are the only ones who believe that the Spirit is eternal and joins the body sometime between conception and birth thus giving the true leeway that before that spirit joins the body, it is not a spiritual being and can be considered lesser than one that has a spirit.  Of course, the sanctity of the potential for life has been declared by prophets as sacred which still puts LDS at a Pro-Life position.

Edited August 7, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

I don't understand what you're saying.  There was nothing in my post that said that it is better to have both die.  Rather, I stated plainly that you don't need to have an exception to the value of life to be able to make the command decision to save one life and not another.

 

Ah. I misread you. Totally my fault, sorry.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hard-right as, not only defensible, but the only acceptable position for non-LDS Christians who believe that Spiritual Life Begins at Conception.

 

The LDS folks are the only ones that can declare that the value of life has exceptions - because the LDS are the only ones who believe that the Spirit is eternal and joins the body sometime between conception and birth thus giving the true leeway that before that spirit joins the body, it is not a spiritual being and would therefore have the same value as Cecil the Lion.

 

So, to make sure I understand--the "only acceptable position for non-LDS Christians who believe that Spiritual Life Begins at Conception" is that an abortion ban should contain no exception for the life of the mother?

 

Are we talking about the political question of whether such exceptions are internally consistent?  Or are we talking about the metaphysical question of whether a person with a particular political position is, of necessity, assigning disparate values to different human lives?

Edited August 7, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

So, to make sure I understand--the "only acceptable position for non-LDS Christians who believe that Spiritual Life Begins at Conception" is that an abortion ban should contain no exception for the life of the mother?

 

 

Correct.  Pro-Life:  A fetus has a God-given right to life.  It does not make sense to say a fetus has a God-given right to life except <insert man-made decision here>.

 

The life of the mother has the same value as the life of the child.  But if both are going down the burning airplane, giving the parachute to the mother doesn't change the value of the life of the child.  The death of the child is the byproduct of unfortunate circumstance.

 

Are we talking about the political question of whether such exceptions are internally consistent?  Or are we talking about the metaphysical question of whether a person with a particular political position is, of necessity, assigning disparate values to different human lives?

 

Both.

 

Two of the main reasons I have for remaining a devout Catholic after investigating many evangelical and protestant Churches are:  1.)  Abortion, 2.) Divorce.

 

Those 2 things are only consistent within the bounds of mortal life in Catholic teaching.  The LDS is the only belief that can extend out of those bounds because of their belief in pre-existence and eternal marriage.

Edited August 7, 2015 by anatess

[kapikui]

The problem with your description is that there will seldom be a case when the mother's life is in jeopardy, but the child will survive.  This happens in childbirth occasionally, but usually well after the child would be viable on it's own.  The more likely event will be that the child will have to be aborted to save the mother, but there would be no way to save the child and let the mother die.  In other words, in the vast majority of instances, it will be abort the child or they both die.   In this circumstance, aborting the fetus is the only logical course of action.  It's dead either way and you can save another life.

 

A more likely scenario is when there is significant risk to the mother's life, but a possibility of survival.  This is when the question becomes interesting.  There is always a risk of death during pregnancy and childbirth how much risk triggers abortion being OK?  If 100% she won't live long enough to give birth, you abort no question, what about 95%?  What about 50%?  Where is the line?

[Guest]

The problem with your description is that there will seldom be a case when the mother's life is in jeopardy, but the child will survive.  This happens in childbirth occasionally, but usually well after the child would be viable on it's own.  The more likely event will be that the child will have to be aborted to save the mother, but there would be no way to save the child and let the mother die.  In other words, in the vast majority of instances, it will be abort the child or they both die.   In this circumstance, aborting the fetus is the only logical course of action.  It's dead either way and you can save another life.

 

A more likely scenario is when there is significant risk to the mother's life, but a possibility of survival.  This is when the question becomes interesting.  There is always a risk of death during pregnancy and childbirth how much risk triggers abortion being OK?  If 100% she won't live long enough to give birth, you abort no question, what about 95%?  What about 50%?  Where is the line?

 

You don't need an exception to save the mother.  People die in the hospital every single day.  They don't need an exception to the value of their life for the doctor (or the relative that instructed the doctor to unplug) to be within the bounds of the law.

 

Having no exception declares that both lives are equal in value, so you put as much effort to save the life of the mother as you do the child.  If it comes to a point where one has to die, the decision to save the mother is not made out of a morality that declares that life has value except when it doesn't, rather, it is made as an acknowledgement that saving one life instead of two is the best we can do.

Edited August 7, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Ah. I misread you. Totally my fault, sorry.

 

I wouldn't say that.  I still have some difficulty expressing myself in a clear and concise manner.

[Just_A_Guy]

Having no exception declares that both lives are equal in value, so you put as much effort to save the life of the mother as you do the child.  If it comes to a point where one has to die, the decision to save the mother is not made out of a morality that declares that life has value except when it doesn't, rather, it is made as an acknowledgement that saving one life instead of two is the best we can do.

 

But, I thought your position was that a non-Mormon pro-lifer can never make a decision to save the mother, because abortion is not justified even when her life is in danger?

 

I'm just confused, I guess. 

[MrShorty]

The life of the mother has the same value as the life of the child.  But if both are going down the burning airplane, giving the parachute to the mother doesn't change the value of the life of the child.  The death of the child is the byproduct of unfortunate circumstance.

This makes sense to me.

 

The main question I still have is, how do our legislators craft legislation that truly preserves this "equal value" for both? Our current legislation seems to put greater value on the mother's life, by allowing her to choose to abort on a whim. I fear that a legislative solution may lean too much the other way -- preserve the child at the expense of the mother because the law is crafted so that the child's life is more valuable than the mother's.

 

While I can see the moral truth of what you say, I still wonder if this needs to be a legislative question or not. Would the better legislative choice be to leave the choice up to those at the point of crisis who will be closest to the situation to make their best judgement on which of two equal lives is best saved? It would be nice to make abortion more difficult to obtain than it is now, but I don't know if we are able to craft a truly perfect legislative solution. I think I would want the legislative part of this to err on the side of "choice" so that individuals and professionals can use their best judgement at these crisis points and leave the final judgement to God who can judge with perfect justice and mercy.

[Backroads]

MrShorty makes a good point on how this would look in practical law, which is where I think the political issue comes in. How could we draft a no-exceptions law that still allows for doing what's gotta be done (due to morality) without making it a big grey area with justification all around?

[Guest]

But, I thought your position was that a non-Mormon pro-lifer can never make a decision to save the mother, because abortion is not justified even when her life is in danger?

I'm just confused, I guess.

I don't know how else to explain this. I was hoping Vort can help me out.

When a doctor is trying to save a person's life but he dies, is this an unjustified death?

If a relative unplugs life support from a patient, is this unjustified?

If it isn't, did we need to put an exception to the murder law to say, this doctor and this relative did not murder anybody? No, we did not need to do so. The circumstance is enough to see that although these lives have value, we can't save them.

This is the same as a baby in utero. We are not required to declare his life of no value to realize that we can't save him after all we can do.

In conclusion - not putting an exception to the value of human life does not mean that we can't save the life of the mother. On the other hand, putting an exception to life declares that a baby's life matters except when it doesn't.

Edited August 8, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

MrShorty makes a good point on how this would look in practical law, which is where I think the political issue comes in. How could we draft a no-exceptions law that still allows for doing what's gotta be done (due to morality) without making it a big grey area with justification all around?

I see this as a simple legislative construct. Simply declare that life begins at conception by law. This makes babies equal to mothers.

The same law the covers a doctor unplugging a patient from life support will be the same law that covers a doctor unplugging a baby from her life support.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll pipe in and say that most non-Catholic Christians would allow an exception if the mother's life was truly at risk.  We reason that children below the age of accountability are protected by Christ's atonement, so such a one would be redeemed.  Many would go further and allow exceptions when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.  Some do so out of realpolitik--believing it's the only way to get a Pro-life restriction passed.  Others argue that when the mother is the victim of often violent sexual assault, then the child should never have been conceived, and the mother can be spared bringing him/her into the world.  Again, they may argue that the child will be saved in heaven.  The exception for when a pregnancy truly threatens the mother's physical life is justifiable.  The other two exceptions cruel compassion.

[Traveler]

There are topics that I am not sure I should respond with what I think.  This is one of them.  I believe that there are things more important than life.  I believe that Jesus taught this principle in John 15:13

 

 

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

It seems to me that G-d values love more than life.  There are parents that value the life of their children and their love of their children more than they value their own life.  There are some that go to war and kill others because of their love of their own children.

 

I do not have all the answers to things.  But in another thread I asked a question that I still ponder - when does G-d intervene.  Can a person die or be killed before their time?  Would not G-d intervene to save a child or anyone whose time has not come?  I am so sure the answer is as easy as many make out such things.

 

The problem is not with children dying before their time - I am not sure I can say such is possible.  But this I am sure of -- Woe unto those by which such offenses come!!!!  Woe unto those that cause the suffering of others for their own pleasure.  Woe unto those that love themselves and their pleasure more than the sacred innocence  of children that must rely on others to protect, nurture, care for and save them.  

 

I do not believe for one second there is a problem with children dying - even dying moments before or even during birth.  The problem is in those that for their own selfish concerns cause others to suffer.  To me it is not so much about children but those that value something of far less value in themselves that they think it better for others to be forced to suffer for them.

 

And should they realize their error - I do not know how I can help them beyond the sorrow I have that such things have so much power in our day and time.   I wish I could voice more but for now this is my concern and the answer that I hope will someday be replaced with something better.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

I'll pipe in and say that most non-Catholic Christians would allow an exception if the mother's life was truly at risk.  We reason that children below the age of accountability are protected by Christ's atonement, so such a one would be redeemed.  Many would go further and allow exceptions when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.  Some do so out of realpolitik--believing it's the only way to get a Pro-life restriction passed.  Others argue that when the mother is the victim of often violent sexual assault, then the child should never have been conceived, and the mother can be spared bringing him/her into the world.  Again, they may argue that the child will be saved in heaven.  The exception for when a pregnancy truly threatens the mother's physical life is justifiable.  The other two exceptions cruel compassion.

 

PC, I don't understand the bolded part.  It seems to imply that God made a mistake?

[Still_Small_Voice]

What is life at conception exactly?  Women who take birth control pills may have a sperm fertilize an egg.  But the fertilized egg does not implant itself in the uterus wall because of the birth control pills. 

 

Is conception then when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus wall?

[MrShorty]

Still_Small_Voice. That can be a part of the discussion. I think most (especially the more conservative) consider "conception" is closer to "fertilization" than to "implantation." To many of these people, the only "legitimate" forms of birth control are those that prevent fertilization. These tend to consider those forms that allow fertilization but block implantation as "abortificants", and are, therefore, immoral.

 

As near as I can tell, the LDS Church does not officially take a stance on exactly when life begins. So, IMO, you are free to believe that both fertilization and implantation are necessary for "conception", as long as you recognize that others will believe differently.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I don't understand the bolded part.  It seems to imply that God made a mistake?

 

The quote--implying that a baby conceived out of rape/incest should never have been--is based more in human justice than it is an accusation against God.  The criminal was unjust, and his violence resulted in the baby.  Thus, they would say (I'm not agreeing) that the baby has no right to live.  You correctly point out the weakness of the argument.  It does imply that God made a mistake.

Edited August 11, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

What is life at conception exactly?  Women who take birth control pills may have a sperm fertilize an egg.  But the fertilized egg does not implant itself in the uterus wall because of the birth control pills. 

 

Is conception then when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus wall?

 

 

Still_Small_Voice. That can be a part of the discussion. I think most (especially the more conservative) consider "conception" is closer to "fertilization" than to "implantation." To many of these people, the only "legitimate" forms of birth control are those that prevent fertilization. These tend to consider those forms that allow fertilization but block implantation as "abortificants", and are, therefore, immoral.

 

As near as I can tell, the LDS Church does not officially take a stance on exactly when life begins. So, IMO, you are free to believe that both fertilization and implantation are necessary for "conception", as long as you recognize that others will believe differently.

 

 

The fullness of the gospel restored the teaching on pre-mortal existence - where consciousness/intelligence/spirit exists eternally.  Therefore, the creation of life in the woman's womb is simply the creation of the mortal body that is the temporary vessel of the spiritual man in this 2nd estate.  It isn't until the spirit joins the mortal body sometime between conception and birth that spiritual life of man begins in mortal existence.

 

Other Christian faiths believe that spiritual man is created by God from nothing.  We are co-creators of spiritual man through our willingness to join God in the process of creation, the man contributing his sperm, the woman contributing her egg.  Spiritual man's life then begins out of nothingness when the sperm fertilizes the egg.  At this point of conception, the spirit of man begins regardless of whether this spirit got implanted and survived pregnancy and birth.  A fetus getting miscarried (including those caused by abortificent birth control) is a mortal death of a spiritual person.  This baby receives grace through the atonement of Christ to qualify for salvation.

Edited August 11, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

 A fetus getting miscarried (including those caused by abortificent birth control) is a mortal death of a spiritual person.  This baby receives grace through the atonement of Christ to qualify for salvation.

 

 

I have carefully considered your presentation of other religious views.  I can understand that taking the life of a cognisant responsible adult is argued as "bad" because it could interfere with their repentance and thus be an obstruction of someone's salvation.  Why, from such beliefs, do other religions conclude that abortion is a "bad" thing when it guarantees the child salvation?