Abortion

[Traveler]

I started a thread about republicans overrating themselves and the topic of abortion was mentioned in the thread.  I did a search of the forum for the topic abortion and only found the above-mentioned thread – I thought to start a thread on this topic – but decided to place this topic under “General Discussion”.

Some Thoughts:

It is my understanding that with the Supreme Court ruled that during the first trimester a human embryo cannot be scientifically proven to be human life.  This would imply that only during the first trimester should there be any possibility that abortion on demand be legalized.   Under the constitution human life is legally protected as an inalienable right – of course with a few exceptions – such as the protecting of other human life.  I have always thought that picking the low hanging fruit first is always the best idea.  I believe that a case should be argued before the supreme court that in the third trimester – a normal healthy human embryo is human life and cannot be scientifically separated as different from any scientific definition of regular human life.

As we scientifically study the universe it is becoming apparent that the rarest entity in the universe according to current science – is life as we know it here on earth.  This would imply that intelligent life comparable to human life as we know it here on earth is even more rare – especially considering how long and under what extreme conditions were required for such evolution here on earth.  It is widely considered immoral to the point of being critical to threaten life here on earth because of economic pressures of energy use.  Why is it not considered immoral to abort human life based on nothing more than human pleasures and desires.  Especially when abortion on demand has become so widely spread that the Chaos theory models indicate that widespread abortion would have a greater evolutionary effect (destructively) on human life than the climate change Chaos theory models.

Mother nature teaches us that there are natural circumstances that results in the abortion of a human embryo.   I am not sure that the sin of abortion is the same as the sin of murder, especially concerning the psychological setting of many females that face a pregnancy alone, without the support of the father or a society that shuns that female from giving birth.  That and also that we live in a free society where the public has the responsibility of the law – I prefer that democracy and majority rule be the primary engine of law rather than any interested minority.   But then with all that said – considering how rare human life is to this universe – I seriously wonder about the intelligent capability of a human that wants to destroy that life form in this universe that is genetically most connected to and like them.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I did a search of the forum for the topic abortion and only found the above-mentioned thread

Probably not true.  There's something wrong with this forum's search mechanism (or its indexing mechanism) - it doesn't work on all threads, or doesn't work at all, or is incorrect, or something.  I can demonstrate this or provide test details if anyone really wants, but don't rely on it.  Use google or another search engine that allows you to specify the site to search.  Google results, for example.

[JohnsonJones]

Several thoughts on the topic (which I believe I've expressed on these forums at various times in other threads).

I am not a doctor

1.  I agreed with the ORIGINAL judgement expressed in Roe vs. Wade (but not the consequent follow-ups such as Casey vs. PP).  In this, a DOCTOR should be allowed to make medical decisions on the health of their patient...not the government.  In accordance with that, the things that a doctor and patient discuss and decide in regards to medical treatment may also be kept private between a doctor and patient and do not need to be forced to be shared with the government.  I think allowing doctors to make medical decisions in the fields where they are experts should be something we should advocate for.

2.  A thought I've had on abortion attacks those who are pro-choice.  One of their arguments it that it is THEIR body and therefore should be their choice.  They also say that if the fetus cannot support itself, that it is not really viable and thus more like a parasite.  That as long as it is their body and the thing inside is not able to support itself or be an independent thing, it is still their body and thus their choice.

However, NONE of us are independent.  None of us can survive on our own.  We all need the Earth (and especially oxygen at a most basic level, dying without it within minutes) as our support.  In that way, we are exactly like the fetus's in some ways that they want to easily dispose of.  If we are for preserving human life, no matter if it is thinking or not (for example, I do not think most advocate for the elimination of the elderly once the elderly have lost much of their mental faculty.  There are some, but I think a majority are opposed to just killing an elderly individual who has lost their mental faculties and still consider that murder), then simply doing away with human life because it cannot support itself without something else, ultimately could come back to condemn us all.

[NeuroTypical]

I have a hard time considering undeveloped blastocyst, basically a spherical bunch of cells, to be a human life deserving of any sort of special protection.  It's more than a fingernail, less than a tumor.

I have a hard time considering a fetus that reacts to sunlight, has a sleep and dream cycle, reacts to pain, and has good chances of surviving outside the womb, as anything other than a human life deserving of all the protections we give human life. 

The first thing turns into the second thing.  Where to draw the line?  Your guess is as good as mine.  But we need to draw the line, so we'll know when to protect a woman's right to control her own body, and when to arrest someone for murder.   I'm big on there being clear laws on the issue.  If I have to think hard about it, I guess I'm ok with each state figuring out where they want the clear law to draw the line.  Humans gotta wrestle with this one, and a state full of humans disagreeing with another state, is better than 9 people drawing the line and ticking half the country off.

I'm big on judging within my stewardship, and not judging those who appear to have made different decisions than I'd hope my wife or daughters would make if they were in a similar situation.   It isn't "love thy neighbor unless you hear she had an abortion, then you don't need to love her."

I thought yesterday's 3rd Republican debate was interesting, in that one of the only differences in the candidates were their stances on abortion.  There were the "yeah, let the states decide" candidates, and there were the "20 weeks no matter what and we'll fight die and kill to enforce it" candidates. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Grunt]

From conception, without exception.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Several thoughts on the topic (which I believe I've expressed on these forums at various times in other threads).

......

2.  A thought I've had on abortion attacks those who are pro-choice.  One of their arguments it that it is THEIR body and therefore should be their choice.  They also say that if the fetus cannot support itself, that it is not really viable and thus more like a parasite.  That as long as it is their body and the thing inside is not able to support itself or be an independent thing, it is still their body and thus their choice.

............

I thought I would respond to this particular argument.  I was raised with the concept that nothing is really yours unless you are willing to be responsible and take care of it.  Beyond what I was taught by my goodly parents, I believe that there is legal precedence that backs this concept.  I am not a legal expert and perhaps @Just_A_Guy can better respond, but I believe that there are numerous ordinances that negate ownership where what is being is not properly cared for.  I can give several examples:

Growing up my father owned a lot of property – some of which was not developed.  He owned a road on one of his pieces of property that others would use (the only means at the time to their property).  My father had to prove that he was caring for and properly controlling the road or he would lose ownership of it.

Another example are squatters recently in the news that have taken control of property belonging to others and because of legal conditions the owners of the property have lost control.  In addition, I know of situations where someone owns a building lot but had decided not to build anything for a while.  However, they had not taken care of the property and refuse to make sure that things like hazards (example fire hazards) are cared for and have lost ownership of the property.

Another example are parents that neglect their children have not only lost their children and had them taken away but have been punished and gone to jail.

My final example is that as much as a person thinks they “own” their body – it is illegal for them to commit suicide – even suicide by neglect.  Much more if they endanger other human life.  There are various levels of such legal precedence that define legal conservatorships.

I would argue that there are consequences for how a person care for whatever it is that they think they own.  I would argue that when an embryo reaches the 3rd trimester of pregnancy that by definition of law such is not a “thing” nor a “parasite” nor even something that they individually “own” but human life.  That by scientific reason and proof, should be defined as human life and has sufficient rights to negate abortion on demand by those neglecting their condition.

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

One thing I've thought about recently concerning this subject has to do with the argument we make as members of the Church vs citizens of the US. In the Church we say that abortion is a serious moral transgression/sin but not on the same level as murder. On a civil level we generally make 2 cases for being against abortion. The first is that it is morally wrong but that argument doesn't carry much weight in debates because we shouldn't "push our morality" on to others and moral does not necessarily translate to legal. So the other argument that we usually make is that an unborn child is a person and therefore has rights.

But as members of the Church can we justly on one hand say an unborn child is a person with rights and on the other hand say it's not murder? That seems a bit disingenuous to me, at least in my current way of viewing it. The moral/sanctity of life argument is enough for me to be anti-abortion, but like I said you don't get very far in a debate with that as your leading argument.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

you don't get very far in a debate

I’m not sure anyone has had their mind changed after a debate. Especially an online one on such a loaded topic. 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

One thing I've thought about recently concerning this subject has to do with the argument we make as members of the Church vs citizens of the US. In the Church we say that abortion is a serious moral transgression/sin but not on the same level as murder. On a civil level we generally make 2 cases for being against abortion. The first is that it is morally wrong but that argument doesn't carry much weight in debates because we shouldn't "push our morality" on to others and moral does not necessarily translate to legal. So the other argument that we usually make is that an unborn child is a person and therefore has rights.

But as members of the Church can we justly on one hand say an unborn child is a person with rights and on the other hand say it's not murder? That seems a bit disingenuous to me, at least in my current way of viewing it. The moral/sanctity of life argument is enough for me to be anti-abortion, but like I said you don't get very far in a debate with that as your leading argument.

I have heard this argument often by many people and I could not disagree more with such an illogical argument or thinking process.  I would put forth that the only possibility of humans making a law concerning anything is that the law being made, is made based upon the morals of such human society.

Regardless of what some people think, it is not possible for humans to pass a law to change the universal gradational constant, the second law of thermodynamics, the value of pi or that neutrinos phase over time into different types of neutrinos – to name a few examples.  Thus, I put forth that the only possibilities of laws capable by humans are extensions of human morals.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate a human law that does not have some basic relationship to human morals.   That, in fact, the only realistic argument concerning any law is – what segment or portion of human society has the right to make their morals into laws.

Heaven forbid that some human society decide that the only laws that ought to be passed, must of necessity, be immoral.

Also concerning the rights of a unborn child – the onus of such a proof in the framework of justice has the primary burden of proving that a unborn child is not human life – not the other way around.  For example, a person with serious handicap – it is not the onus in the law to prove that such handicap (including someone completely unresponsive and in a coma) renders them no longer human assuming somehow that there is a point that human life defined by genetics - is no longer human.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, Grunt said:

From conception, without exception.

Should we, like, arm wrestle to figure out who wins?  

[Grunt]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Should we, like, arm wrestle to figure out who wins?  

Wins what?  Did I inadvertently sign up for a competition?  

[NeuroTypical]

From certain vantage points, it looks like the entire country is in a competition on what sort of abortion law to have in place.  At one end of the spectrum, we have states getting close to "abortion up to birth, and maybe after birth, funded by the state, and actively encouraged by people who hate people and want to fix climate change through population reduction."   On the other end of the spectrum, we have your deal.   Most folks lie somewhere between those two ends.  

I guess I was just hoping for an easy way to have everyone settled on the matter once and for all. 

 

[Grunt]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

From certain vantage points, it looks like the entire country is in a competition on what sort of abortion law to have in place.  At one end of the spectrum, we have states getting close to "abortion up to birth, and maybe after birth, funded by the state, and actively encouraged by people who hate people and want to fix climate change through population reduction."   On the other end of the spectrum, we have your deal.   Most folks lie somewhere between those two ends.  

I guess I was just hoping for an easy way to have everyone settled on the matter once and for all. 

 

I've never really cared where "most folks" lie on most topics.  I'm very comfortable with my "deal" and how it aligns with Heavenly Father's "deal".

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

guess I was just hoping for an easy way to have everyone settled on the matter once and for all. 

 

Abortion is such a loaded topic that there is no chance whatsoever of this happening. Even abrasive political junkies like me don’t like discussing it unless I’m with my close friends.

[LDSGator]

Even discussing abortion brings out the worst in people. Want to see hedonistic selfishness? Talk to a hardcore pro chocier. Want to see priggish self righteousness? Talk to a hardcore pro lifer (even the non religious ones!). This could get ugly fast. 

[laronius]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have heard this argument often by many people and I could not disagree more with such an illogical argument or thinking process.  I would put forth that the only possibility of humans making a law concerning anything is that the law being made, is made based upon the morals of such human society.

Regardless of what some people think, it is not possible for humans to pass a law to change the universal gradational constant, the second law of thermodynamics, the value of pi or that neutrinos phase over time into different types of neutrinos – to name a few examples.  Thus, I put forth that the only possibilities of laws capable by humans are extensions of human morals.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate a human law that does not have some basic relationship to human morals.   That, in fact, the only realistic argument concerning any law is – what segment or portion of human society has the right to make their morals into laws.

Heaven forbid that some human society decide that the only laws that ought to be passed, must of necessity, be immoral.

Also concerning the rights of a unborn child – the onus of such a proof in the framework of justice has the primary burden of proving that a unborn child is not human life – not the other way around.  For example, a person with serious handicap – it is not the onus in the law to prove that such handicap (including someone completely unresponsive and in a coma) renders them no longer human assuming somehow that there is a point that human life defined by genetics - is no longer human.

 

The Traveler

I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying. I wasn't contrasting moral vs immoral. I was contrasting strictly moral vs those rights which are generally also moral but additionally are secured in the US Constitution. The difference being that those secured by the US Constitution are supposed to be set in stone whereas those that aren't will change with time based on society. 

Also, I wasn't saying that an unborn child is not a person. I generally believe them to be so. Likewise I also have a testimony of the Church so if the Church says abortion is not murder then that's what I believe. My point was that those two beliefs seem kind of contradictory in nature: saying it's a person (from a Constitutional rights perspective) and yet killing this person is not murder (from an LDS doctrine perspective). This doesn't stop me from believing both, it just makes me wonder how we would explain it to someone. 

Edited November 11, 2023 by laronius

[Grunt]

12 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying. I wasn't contrasting moral vs immoral. I was contrasting strictly moral vs those rights which are generally also moral but additionally are secured in the US Constitution. The difference being that those secured by the US Constitution are supposed to be set in stone whereas those that aren't will change with time based on society. 

Also, I wasn't saying that an unborn child is not a person. I generally believe them to be so. Likewise I also have a testimony of the Church so if the Church says abortion is not murder then that's what I believe. My point was that those two beliefs seem kind of contradictory in nature: saying it's a person (from a Constitutional rights perspective) and yet killing this person is not murder (from an LDS doctrine perspective). This doesn't stop me from believing both, it just makes me wonder how we would explain it to someone. 

Could you cite where you’re drawing “the Church says abortion is not murder” from?   That’s a very broad statement.  My take is more “there are extremely limited situations where it may be justified “.   I don’t believe justified is the right word, I just can’t think of a better one.  

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Could you cite where you’re drawing “the Church says abortion is not murder” from?   That’s a very broad statement.  My take is more “there are extremely limited situations where it may be justified “.   I don’t believe justified is the right word, I just can’t think of a better one.  

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/abortion
 

This is all I found. I’ve never heard a GC talk about it (I’m not saying they don’t exist!) or a local one about it either. I do think the church paid more attention to gay marriage than abortion. It’s not a perfect saying but roughly I think gay marriage is to the LDS church what abortion is to the Catholic church. 

Edited November 11, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

And happy Veterans Day to @Grunt, @Phoenix_person and everyone else here who served! God bless you! 

[zil2]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Could you cite where you’re drawing “the Church says abortion is not murder” from?   That’s a very broad statement.  My take is more “there are extremely limited situations where it may be justified “.   I don’t believe justified is the right word, I just can’t think of a better one.  

Abortion Entry (38.6.1) in General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't explicitly say "abortion is not murder", but perhaps the last sentence in the section suggests it.  Ah, but:

38.2.8.7:

Quote

A person who has been convicted of murder or a crime involving sexual misconduct may not be baptized unless the First Presidency gives approval (see 38.2.8.6). The same is true for a person who has confessed to committing murder even if the confession was in private to a priesthood leader. As used here, murder does not include abortion or police or military action in the line of duty.

The section immediately before that contains relevant information.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Abortion Entry (38.6.1) in General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't explicitly say "abortion is not murder", but perhaps the last sentence in the section suggests it.  Ah, but:

38.2.8.7:

The section immediately before that contains relevant information.

@zil2, didn’t Gordon Hinckley have a GC speech about it or am I lost?

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

Could you cite where you’re drawing “the Church says abortion is not murder” from?   That’s a very broad statement.  My take is more “there are extremely limited situations where it may be justified “.   I don’t believe justified is the right word, I just can’t think of a better one.  

Here are some quotes to consider:

Quote

I know of no sins connected with the moral standard for which we cannot be forgiven. I do not exempt abortion.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/our-moral-environment?lang=eng#p13

Quote

We hear so much about emancipation, independence, sexual liberation, birth control, abortion, and other insidious propaganda belittling the role of motherhood, all of which is Satan’s way of destroying woman, the home, and the family—the basic unit of society.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/no-greater-honor-the-womans-role?lang=eng#p8

Quote

The cases that are to be handled by the Church include but are not limited to fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, abortion, or other infractions of the moral code; intemperance; criminal acts involving moral turpitude, such as burglary, dishonesty, theft, or murder; apostasy; open opposition to and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the Church; cruelty to spouse or children; advocating or practicing so-called plural marriage; or any un-Christianlike conduct in violation of the law and order of the Church.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/04/priesthood-responsibilities?lang=eng#p9

Quote

The ultimate act of destruction is to take a life. That is why abortion is such a serious sin. Our attitude toward abortion is not based on revealed knowledge of when mortal life begins for legal purposes. It is fixed by our knowledge that according to an eternal plan all of the spirit children of God must come to this earth for a glorious purpose, and that individual identity began long before conception and will continue for all the eternities to come. We rely on the prophets of God, who have told us that while there may be “rare” exceptions, “the practice of elective abortion is fundamentally contrary to the Lord’s injunction, ‘Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it’

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng#p26

 

[zil2]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

@zil2, didn’t Gordon Hinckley have a GC speech about it or am I lost?

I don't remember.

[Grunt]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Here are some quotes to consider:

 

Thank you.  I'm familiar with most of these, and others, which ultimately led to my question.   Murder is typically used as a legal term (ie: abortion is legal therefore not murder) but it also has spiritual connections.  The Church has said there may be circumstances where it would not consider abortion serious enough to restrict membership.   I just felt that "abortion is not murder" was a very broad statement that might imply things which are not necessarily true.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

@zil2, didn’t Gordon Hinckley have a GC speech about it or am I lost?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/abortion?lang=eng