ARGUMENTS FOR ELECTIVE ABORTION AND CONTRASTING STATEMENTS FROM CHURCH LEADERS ON THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
1. Abortion is an option if the pregnancy affects the health of
the mother; health may be defined in personal, physical, mental, emotional,
social, or financial terms.
“When deemed by competent medical authorities that the life of one
must be terminated in order to save the life of the other, may agree that it is
better to spare the mother. But these circumstances are rare” (Russell M.
Nelson (1985, May). Reverence for life, Ensign, 15[5], 12)
“Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions [to
abortion] are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or a competent
physical has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy,
or the fetus has severe defects that will now allow the baby to survive beyond
birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because
abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be
considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops
and received divine confirmation through prayer” (Dallin H. Oaks [1999,
February 9], BYU Devotional, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/weightier-matters)
2. Abortion is an option if the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest.
“Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing. . . . While we
denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances when pregnancy is the
result of incest or rape. . . . But such
instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their
occurring. In these circumstances those who ace the question are asked to
consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness,
receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding” (Gordon B. Hinckley
[1998, November], What are people asking about us? Ensign, 28[11], 71).
3. Abortion is an option if the child will be born with a physical
disability or a mental deficiency.
“If one is to be deprived of life because of potential for
developing physical problems, consistency would dictate that those who already
have such deficiencies should likewise be terminated . . . those who are either
infirm, incompetent, or inconvenient should be eliminated by those in power.
Such irreverence for life is unthinkable!” (Russell M. Nelson [1985, May],
Reverence for life, Ensign, 15[5], 13).
4. A woman should be free to choose what she does with her own
body: “I would not have an abortion, but I believe that others would have freedom
to choose abortion.”
“The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for
the body of another . . . . The consequence of terminating the fetus therein
involves the body and very life of another. Those two individuals have separate
brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that
there is no child and no life there is to deny reality” (Russell M. Nelson
[1985, May], Reverence for life, Ensign, 15[5], 13).
“The advocates for lifting all restraints excuse themselves from responsibility
by saying, ‘I do not intend to do any of these things myself, but I think
everyone should be free to choose what they want to do without any moral or
legal interference,’ With that same logic one could argue that all traffic
signs and barriers set to keep the carless from falling to their death should
be pulled won on the theory that such individual has the moral right to choose
how close to the edge he will go” (Boyd K. Packer [1992, March 29], The
Fountain of life, BYU 18-Stake Fireside, p. 7).
“I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now
defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on
the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion
and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice . . . . Pro-choice
slogans have been particularly seductive in Latter-day Saints because we know
that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a
fundamental necessity to the gospel plan . . . Choice is a method, not the
ultimate goal . . . we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice.
We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think
beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they
pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not
support if those results were presented without disguise . . . If we say we are
anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are
saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that
encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious
sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves
which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law . .
. . Should be decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse?
(Dallin H. Oaks [1999, February], BYU Devotional, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/weightier-matters)
“Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give .
. . exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the
law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons face the
reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely
rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly
cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—are involved only
in a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions
performed each year that extinguish the life of a fetus are conceived by
consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to
vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences” (Dallin H. Oaks [1999, February
9], BYU Devotional, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/weightier-matters)
5. Abortion is an option because we do now know exactly when life
begins or when the spirit enters the body.
“It is not a question of when meaningful life begins or when the
spirit ‘quickens’ the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life
begins when two germs cells unite to become one cell, bringing together
twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and mother . . . A continuum of
growth results in a new human being . . . . At twenty-six days the circulation
of blood begins. Scripture declares that the ‘life of the flesh is in the blood.’
(Lev. 17:11) Abortion sheds that innocent blood “ (Russell M. Nelson [1985,
May], Reverence for life, Ensign, 15[5], 13)
“Once a life is conceived, to inflict death, even before birth is
a major transgression, save conception results from rape, the mother’s life
hangs in the balance, or the life of the unborn is certified to be hopeless. We
do not know all about when a spirit enters the body but we do know that life,
in any form, is very precious. While we are given the power to generate life
and commanded to do so, we have no license to destroy it” (Boyd K. Packer
[1992, March 29], The fountains of life, BYU 18-Stake Fireside, p. 4).
6. Abortion should be used to reduce the number of people born
because the earth is overpopulated. Abortion is necessary to stop poverty and
to protect the environment.
“Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of
prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments,
they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully
attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion”
(Russell M. Nelson [1985, May], Reverence for life, Ensign, 15[5], 13).
“Today I speak to members of the Church as an environmentalist . .
. . The deliberate pollution of the fountain of life now clouds our moral
environment. The gift of mortal life and the capacity to kindle other lives is
a supernal blessing. . . While we pass
laws to reduce pollution of the earth, any proposal to protect the moral and
spiritual environment is shouted down and marched against as infringing upon
liberty, agency, freedom, the right to choose” (Boyd K. Packer [1992, May], Our
moral environment, Ensign, 22[5], 66).
7. Abortion is a means of empowering women; abortion improves the
status of women.
“For the wrath of God is provoked by governments that sponsor
gambling, condone pornography, or legalize abortion. These forces sere to
denigrate women now, just as they did in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah”
(Russell M. Nelson [1987, November], Lessons from Eve, Ensign, 17[11],
89).
8. Reproductive freedom through abortion is a fundamental human
right.
“The rights of any individual bump up against the rights of
another. And the simple truth is that we cannot be happy, nor saved, nor
exalted, without one another . . . Nowhere is the right of choice defended with
more vigor than with abortion . . . . In or out of marriage, abortion is not an
individual choice. At a minimum, three lives are involved” (Boyd K. Packer
[19990, November], Covenants, Ensign, 20[11], 84-85).
9. Abortion is a moral issue; morality cannot be legislated.
“Life is a moral issue. When morality is involved, we have both
the right and the obligation to raise a warning voice” (Boyd K.
Packer [1992, May], Our moral environment, Ensign, 22[5], 67).
“Some reach the pro-choice position by saying that we should not
legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of
crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral
basis so our government will not punish any voices some persons consider
immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes”
(Dallin H. Oaks [1999, February 9], BYU Devotional).
10. Abortion is now legal. Abortion is “politically correct.”
“Whatever the laws of man may come to tolerate, the misuse of the
power of procreation, the destroying of innocent life through abortion, and the
abuse of little children are transgressions of enormous proportion” (Boyd K.
Packer [1986, November], Little children, Ensign, 16[11], 18).
“Hence we view pornography as an awful and enslaving thing. We
cannot feel otherwise concerning such practice as abortion and pornography,
even if practices such as abortion and pornography are legally and political protected”
(Neal A. Maxwell [1993, April], The inexhaustible gospel, Ensign, 23[4],
72).
“During a prayer breakfast in Washington on 3 February 1994,
Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this
subject I have ever heard . . . . Mother Teresa had tied abortion to growing violence
and murder in the streets by saying, ‘If we accept that a mother can kill even
her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? . . . . Any
country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use
any violence to get what they want . . . What consummate spiritual courage this
remarkable aged women [Mother Teresa] demonstrated. How the devil must have
been offended! Her remarkable declaration, however, was not generally picked up
by the press or the editorial writers. Perhaps they felt more comfortable being
politically or socially correct. After all, they can justify their stance by
asserting that everyone does it or that it is legal. Fortunately the scriptures
and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised” (James E. Faust [1995,
September], Serving the Lord and resisting the Devil, Ensign, 25[9], 5).
11. Abortion is acceptable because the unborn fetus is not really
a person, or is not a baby, or is not a child.
“Abortion, which has increased enormously, causes one to ask, ‘Have
we strayed so far from God’s second great commandment—love they neighbor—that a
baby in the womb no longer qualifies to be loved—at least as a mother’s
neighbor?’” (Neal A. Maxwell [1993, May], Behold the enemy is combined, Ensign,
23[5], 76).
12. Abortion is a solution for teen pregnancy and unwed parents.
“There will be those who . . . . discover to their shock and
dismay that they are to become parents, while they are scarcely older than
children themselves. Abortion is not the answer. This only compounds the
problem. It is an evil and repulsive escape that will someday bring regret and
remorse. . . When marriage is not possible, experience has shown that adoption,
difficult though this may be for the young mother, may afford a greater
opportunity for the child to live a life of happiness” (Gordon B. Hinckley [1994,
November], Save the children, Ensign, 24[11], 53).
“There is far better way. If there is no prospect of marriage to
the man involved, leaving the mother alone, there remains the very welcome option
of placing the child for adoption by parents who will love it and care for it.
There are many such couples in good homes who long for a child and cannot have
one” (Gordon B. Hinckley [1998, November], What are the people asking about us?
Ensign, 28[11], 71).
13. Every child should be a wanted child. If a pregnant mother
does not want the child or is not able to rear the child, then the child should
be aborted.
“Mother Teresa pled for pregnant women who don’t want their
children to give them to her. She said, ‘I am willing to accept any child who
would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the
child and be loved by the child’” (James E. Faust [1995, September], Serving
the Lord and resisting the Devil, Ensign, 25[9], 4). (Cynthia L. Hallen,
“The Sanctity and Importance of Human Life,” in Strengthening Our Families:
An In-Depth Look at the Proclamation on the Family, ed. David C. Dollahite
[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000], 211-13)
