Sunday, May 29, 2022

Arguments for Elective Abortion and Contrasting Statements from Church Leaders on the Sanctity of Life


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)