Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Please follow this blog! click on "Follow blog"
Followers
Counter
Guidelines
My Uncle John wisely said " political opinions of others can be taken as a criticism of ourselves for holding a different position". Be careful! This is a political and Religious debate blog-- your position should and will be criticized. Please, Please, Please-- do not be offended. You are not being attacked, so do not be defensive. It is not you but your reasoning that are under fire-- heated up until the inconsistencies and weaknesses in your reasoning are apparent.
21 comments:
Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless
By Elder Russell M. Nelson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
As I begin, let me apologize to readers for the use of terms that are not pleasant. The nature of the war to which I’m referring requires such clarity of communication.
As sons and daughters of God, we cherish life as a gift from Him. His eternal plan provides opportunities for His children to obtain physical bodies, to gain earthly experiences, and to realize their divine destinies as heirs of eternal life.1
Death Rates from Wars
With that understanding and reverence for life, we deplore the loss of life associated with warfare. The data are appalling. In World War I, more than 8 million military fatalities occurred. In World War II, more than 22 million servicemen and women died.2 Together, these two wars, covering portions of 14 years, cost the lives of at least 30 million soldiers worldwide. That figure does not include the millions of civilian casualties.
These data, however, are dwarfed by the toll of another war that claims more casualties annually than did World War I and World War II combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed per year.3
This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice.
Divine Doctrine
This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.”4 Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.”5 Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, enlightened individuals understood the sanctity of human life. John Calvin, a sixteenth-century reformer, wrote, “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, … it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light.”6
Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong.
Special Concerns
Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.
Some argue for abortion because of fear that a child may have a congenital malformation. Surely the harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy are real, but caution is needed in considering the termination of a pregnancy. Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities. Furthermore, the outcome may not be as serious as postulated.
I remember well a couple who endured such an experience. The woman was only 21 years old at the time—a beautiful and devoted wife. In her first trimester, she contracted German measles. Abortion was advised because the developing baby would almost surely be damaged. Some members of her family, out of loving concern, applied additional pressure for an abortion. Devotedly, the couple consulted their bishop. He referred them to their stake president, who, after listening to their concern, counseled them not to terminate the life of this baby, even though the child would likely have a problem. He quoted this scripture:
“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
“In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”7
They chose to follow that counsel and allowed their child to be born—a beautiful little girl, normal in every respect, except for total hearing loss. After their daughter’s evaluation at a school for the deaf, the parents were advised that this child had the intellect of a genius. She attended a major university on a scholarship. Now some 40 years later, she enjoys a wonderful life.
To deny life to an individual because of a possible handicap is a very serious matter. Policy consistent with that logic would dictate that those already living with such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. One more step in that tragic train of thought would lead to the conclusion that those who are either infirm or inconvenient should also be eliminated. Such irreverence for life would be totally unthinkable!
Abortion on Demand
Relatively few abortions are performed for the special circumstances to which I have referred.8 Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.
Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences.
To understand this concept more clearly, we can learn from the astronaut. Anytime during selection or preparation, he or she is free to withdraw from the program. But once the spacecraft has lifted off, the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make the journey.
So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made.
Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”
When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.
As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method.9
Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins.10 To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.
Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God.11 Individuals will prosper only when they walk in faith and obedience to God, who said:
“I, the Lord, … built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
“And it is my purpose to provide. …
“But it must needs be done in mine own way. …
“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.”12
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.”13
Early in his presidency President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.”14 Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”15
Adoption
Why destroy a life that could bring great joy to others? There are better ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. When a life is created by sinful behavior, the best way to begin personal repentance is to preserve the life of that child. To add another serious sin to a serious sin already committed only compounds the grief. Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. Both the baby and the adoptive parents can be greatly blessed by the adoption of that baby into a home where the child will be lovingly nurtured and where the blessings of the gospel will be available.
Repentance Is Possible
Is there any hope for the person who has participated in the act of abortion? Is there any hope for those who have so sinned and who now suffer heartbreak? The answer is yes! “As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.”16 We know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.17
Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone.18 I testify that life is eternal as He is eternal.
Adoption—A Loving Decision That Blesses the Child
“We … express our support of unwed parents who place their children for adoption in stable homes with a mother and a father. We also express our support of the married mothers and fathers who adopt these children.
“Children are entitled to the blessing of being reared in a stable family environment where father and mother honor marital vows. Having a secure, nurturing, and consistent relationship with both a father and a mother is essential to a child’s well-being. When choosing adoption, unwed parents grant their children this most important blessing. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses the child, birth parents, and adoptive parents in this life and throughout the eternities. We commend all those who strengthen children and families by promoting adoption.”
First Presidency statement, Oct. 4, 2006.
Photo illustration by Steve Bunderson
From left: photo illustrations by Matthew Reier and John Luke; space shuttle photograph courtesy of NASA
From left: photo illustration by Robert Casey; illustration by Gregg Thorkelson; photo illustration by Bryant Livingston
Notes
1. See “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.
2. See The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. (1998), “World Wars, The.”
3. See Maria Cheng, “Abortion Just as Common in Nations Where It’s Illegal,” Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 12, 2007, p. A7. In the United States the number of live births per year is in the range of three to four million. The number of abortions during that same period of time exceeds one million. Thus, in that country, one of every three to four pregnancies ends in abortion.
4. See Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Matthew 5:21; Romans 13:9; Mosiah 13:21; 3 Nephi 12:21; D&C 42:18–19.
5. D&C 59:6.
6. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, 22 vols. (1979), 3:42.
7. Proverbs 3:5–6.
8. See statement of Dr. Irvin M. Cushner, speaking to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutional Amendments Relating to Abortion, S.J. 17–19, 110, 97th Cong., 1st sess., 1981, 158.
9. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Liahona, Mar. 2000, 17–19; Ensign, Jan. 2001, 13–15.
10. See J. Willis Hurst and others, eds., The Heart, 4th ed. (1978), 7.
11. See Leviticus 26:3–13; Joshua 1:7–8; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 18:5–7; 2 Chronicles 24:20; 26:5; 31:21; Job 36:11–12; 1 Nephi 2:20–21; 4:14; 2 Nephi 1:9, 20, 31; 4:4; 5:10–11; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7; 2:22, 31; Alma 9:13; 36:1, 30; 37:13; 38:1; 45:6–8; 48:15, 25; 50:20; Helaman 3:20; 3 Nephi 5:22; D&C 9:13.
12. D&C 104:14–17.
13. John Taylor and George Q. Cannon, “Epistle of the First Presidency,” Apr. 4, 1885; in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (1965–75), 3:11.
14. Spencer W. Kimball, “A Report and a Challenge,” Ensign, Nov. 1976, 6; see also “The Time to Labor Is Now,” Ensign, Nov. 1975, 6.
15. Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics (2006), 185.
16. Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 185.
17. See Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:12; 10:17; D&C 58:42.
18. See Deuteronomy 30:20; Acts 17:28; D&C 88:13; Moses 6:32.
First Presidency Message
Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil
By President James E. Faust
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
Abortion
Abortion is one evil practice that has become socially accepted in the United States and, indeed, in much of the world. Many of today’s politicians claim not to favor abortion but oppose government intervention in a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
During a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., on 3 February 1994, Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard. She is the 84-year-old Yugoslavian nun who has cared for the poorest of the poor in India for years. She is now aged .and physically frail, but courageous, with immense spiritual strength. Mother Teresa delivered a message that cut to the very heart and soul of the social ills afflicting America, which traditionally has given generously to the peoples of the earth but now has become selfish. She stated that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. It was reported that 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.” 11
Then she alluded to the concern that has been shown for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world, for which she expressed gratitude. But she continued: “These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today—abortion, which brings people to such blindness.” 12 Commenting on this powerful message, columnist Cal Thomas asked: “Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion flourishes? Why agonize about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras?” 13
In conclusion 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.” 14 What consummate spiritual courage this remarkable aged woman 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.
LDS.org
Abortion
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
LDS.org
Abortion
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
LDS.org
Policies and Procedures: Statement on Abortion
Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, “Policies and Procedures: Statement on Abortion,” New Era, Apr 1973, 29
In view of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, we feel it necessary to restate the position of the Church on abortion in order that there be no misunderstanding of our attitude.
The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.
Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.
Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, “Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.” [D&C 59:6]
As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:
“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”
This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin.
The First Presidency
Harold B. Lee
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan 2001, 13
From a devotional address given at Brigham Young University on 9 February 1999.
Diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters are love of God, obedience to His commandments, and unity in accomplishing the work of His Church.
The book of Matthew contains the Savior’s denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees: “Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23:23; emphasis added).
I wish to address some “weightier matters” we might overlook if we allow ourselves to focus exclusively on lesser matters. The weightier matters to which I refer are the qualities like faith and the love of God and His work that will move us strongly toward our eternal goals.
In speaking of weightier matters, I seek to contrast our ultimate goals in eternity with the mortal methods or short-term objectives we use to pursue them. The Apostle Paul described the difference between earthly perspectives and eternal ones in these words: “We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18).
If we concentrate too intently on our obvious earthly methods or objectives, we can lose sight of our eternal goals, which the Apostle called “things … not seen.” If we do this, we can forget where we should be headed and in eternal terms go nowhere. We do not improve our position in eternity just by flying farther and faster in mortality, but only by moving knowledgeably in the right direction. As the Lord told us in modern revelation, “That which the Spirit testifies unto you … ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation” (D&C 46:7; emphasis added).
We must not confuse means and ends. The vehicle is not the destination. If we lose sight of our eternal goals, we might think that the most important thing is how fast we are moving and that any road will get us to our destination. The Apostle Paul described this attitude as “hav[ing] a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). Zeal is a method, not a goal. Zeal—even a zeal toward God—needs to be “according to knowledge” of God’s commandments and His plan for His children. In other words, the weightier matter of the eternal goal must not be displaced by the mortal method, however excellent in itself.
Thus far I have spoken in generalities. Now I will give three examples.
Family
All Latter-day Saints understand that having an eternal family is an eternal goal. Exaltation is a family matter, not possible outside the everlasting covenant of marriage, which makes possible the perpetuation of glorious family relationships. But this does not mean that everything related to mortal families is an eternal goal. There are many short-term objectives associated with families—such as family togetherness or family solidarity or love—that are methods, not the eternal goals we pursue in priority above all others. For example, family solidarity to conduct an evil enterprise is obviously no virtue. Neither is family solidarity to conceal and perpetuate some evil practice like abuse.
The purpose of mortal families is to bring children into the world, to teach them what is right, and to prepare all family members for exaltation in eternal family relationships. The gospel plan contemplates the kind of family government, discipline, solidarity, and love that serve those ultimate goals. But even the love of family members is subject to the overriding first commandment, which is love of God (see Matt. 22:37–38), and the Savior’s directive, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). As Jesus taught, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37).
Choice, or Agency
My next example in this message on weightier matters is the role of choice, or agency.
Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency—the right to choose—is a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of Revelation calls a “war in heaven.” This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life (see Rev. 12:7–9).
But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to use it—to choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal.
Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. Many do not understand that important fact. We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.
Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made. “Choice” can even become a slogan to justify one particular choice. For example, today one who says “I am pro-choice” is clearly understood as opposing any legal restrictions upon a woman’s choice to abort a fetus.
More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” 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. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals.
In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
In today’s world 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.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not 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.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should 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—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. 1 Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.”
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
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 due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying 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 that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.
Diversity
My last illustration of the bad effects of confusing means and ends, methods and goals, concerns the word diversity. Not many labels have been productive of more confused thinking in our time than this one. A respected federal judge recently commented on current changes in culture and values by observing that “a new credo in celebration of diversity seems to be emerging which proclaims, ‘Divided We Stand!’ ” 2 Even in religious terms, we sometimes hear the words “celebrate diversity” as if diversity were an ultimate goal.
The word diversity has legitimate uses to describe a condition, such as when one discusses “racial and cultural diversity.” Similarly, what we now call “diversity” appears in the scriptures as a condition. This is evident wherever differences among the children of God are described, such as in the numerous scriptural references to nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.
Yet in the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that His followers would be “diverse.” He prayed that they would be “one” (John 17:21–22). Modern revelation does not say, “Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse, ye are not mine.” It says, “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).
Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objective—not an ultimate goal—whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, “What kind of diversity?” or “Diversity in what circumstance or condition?” or “Diversity in furtherance of what goal?” This is especially important in our policy debates, which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results. For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood, does this mean we should seek to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles, slaughterhouses and water hazards? Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed-upon goal.
Our Church has an approach to the obvious cultural and ethnic diversities among our members. We teach that what unites us is far more important than what differentiates us. Consequently, our members are asked to concentrate their efforts to strengthen our unity—not to glorify our diversity. For example, our objective is not to organize local wards and branches according to differences in culture or in ethnic or national origins, although that effect is sometimes produced on a temporary basis when required because of language barriers. Instead, we teach that members of majority groupings (whatever their nature) are responsible to accept Church members of other groupings, providing full fellowship and full opportunities in Church participation. We seek to establish a community of Saints—“one body,” the Apostle Paul called it (1 Cor. 12:13)—where everyone feels needed and wanted and where all can pursue the eternal goals we share.
Consistent with the Savior’s command to “be one,” we seek unity. On this subject President Gordon B. Hinckley has taught:
“I remember when President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., as a counselor in the First Presidency, would stand at this pulpit and plead for unity among the priesthood. I think he was not asking that we give up our individual personalities and become as robots cast from a single mold. I am confident he was not asking that we cease to think, to meditate, to ponder as individuals. I think he was telling us that if we are to assist in moving forward the work of God, we must carry in our hearts a united conviction concerning the great basic foundation stones of our faith. … If we are to assist in moving forward the work of God, we must carry in our hearts a united conviction that the ordinances and covenants of this work are eternal and everlasting in their consequences.” 3
Anyone who preaches unity risks misunderstanding. The same is true of anyone who questions the goal of diversity. Such a one risks being thought intolerant. But tolerance is not jeopardized by promoting unity or by challenging diversity. Again, I quote President Hinckley: “Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences.” 4
On another occasion he said:
“We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility.” 5
President Hinckley continues:
“An article of the faith to which I subscribe states: ‘We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may’ (A of F 1:11). I hope to find myself always on the side of those defending this position. Our strength lies in our freedom to choose. There is strength even in our very diversity. But there is greater strength in the God-given mandate to each of us to work for the uplift and blessing of all His sons and daughters, regardless of their ethnic or national origin or other differences.” 6
In short, we preach unity among the community of Saints and tolerance toward the personal differences that are inevitable in the beliefs and conduct of a diverse population. Tolerance obviously requires a noncontentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.
Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve “diversity” by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no one’s value will be contradicted by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of former Brigham Young University visiting professor Louis Pojman’s observation that diversity can be used as “a euphemism for moral relativism.” 7
There are hundreds of examples of this, where achieving the goal of diversity results in the anarchy of values we call moral relativism. These examples include such varied proposals as forbidding the public schools to teach the wrongfulness of certain behavior or the rightness of patriotism. Another example is the attempt to banish a representation of the Ten Commandments from any public buildings.
In a day when prominent thinkers have decried the fact that universities have stopped teaching right and wrong, we are grateful for the countercultural position at Brigham Young University. Moral relativism, which is said to be the dominant force in American universities, has no legitimate place at BYU. The faculty teach values—the right and wrong taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters that move us toward our goal of eternal life are love of God, obedience to His commandments, and unity in accomplishing the work of His Church. In this belief and practice we move against the powerful modern tides running toward individualism and tolerance rather than toward obedience and cooperative action. Though our belief and practice is unpopular, it is right, and it does not require the blind obedience or the stifling uniformity its critics charge. If we are united on our eternal goal and united on the inspired principles that will get us there, we can be diverse on individual efforts in support of our goals and consistent with those principles.
We know that the work of God cannot be done without unity and cooperative action. We also know that the children of God cannot be exalted as single individuals. Neither a man nor a woman can be exalted in the celestial kingdom unless both unite in the unselfishness of the everlasting covenant of marriage and unless both choose to keep the commandments and honor the covenants of that united state.
I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior. As the One whose Atonement paid the incomprehensible price for our sins, He is the One who can prescribe the conditions for our salvation. He has commanded us to keep His commandments (see John 14:15) and to “be one” (D&C 38:27). I pray that we will make the wise choices to keep the commandments and to seek the unity that will move us toward our ultimate goal, “eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).
Covenants
Elder Boyd K. Packer
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
It was an experience to hear President Joseph Fielding Smith pray. Even when he was past ninety he would pray that he would “keep his covenants and obligations and endure to the end.” The word covenant is the subject of my message.
The Lord told the ancients, “With thee will I establish my covenant.” (Gen. 6:18.) He told the Nephites, “Ye are the children of the covenant.” (3 Ne. 20:26.) And he described the restored gospel as the “new and … everlasting covenant.” (D&C 22:1; italics added.) Every Latter-day Saint is under covenant. Baptism is a covenant; so is the sacrament. Through it we renew the covenant of baptism and commit to “always remember him and keep his commandments.” (D&C 20:77.)
Three Dangerous Life-Styles
My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a life-style which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.
Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous life-styles legal and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction. They are debated in forums and seminars, in classes, in conversations, in conventions, and in courts all over the world. The social and political aspects of them are in the press every day.
Moral and Spiritual
The point I make is simply this: there is a MORAL and SPIRITUAL side to these issues which is universally ignored. For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not.
The commandments found in the scriptures, both the positive counsel and the “shalt nots,” form the letter of the law. There is also the spirit of the law. We are responsible for both.
Some challenge us to show where the scriptures specifically forbid abortion or a gay-lesbian or drug-centered life-style. “If they are so wrong,” they ask, “why don’t the scriptures tell us so in ‘letter of the law’ plainness?” These issues are not ignored in the revelations.* The scriptures are generally positive rather than negative in their themes, and it is a mistake to assume that anything not specifically prohibited in the “letter of the law” is somehow approved of the Lord. All the Lord approves is not detailed in the scriptures, neither is all that is forbidden. The Word of Wisdom, for instance, makes no specific warning against taking arsenic. Surely we don’t need a revelation to tell us that!
The Lord said, “It is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant.” (D&C 58:26.) The prophets told us in the Book of Mormon that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.” (2 Ne. 2:5; see Hel. 14:31.)
Life is meant to be a test to see if we will keep the commandments of God. (See 2 Ne. 2:5.) We are free to obey or to ignore the spirit and the letter of the law. But the agency granted to man is a moral agency. (See D&C 101:78.) We are not free to break our covenants and escape the consequences.
The laws of God are ordained to make us happy. Happiness cannot coexist with immorality: the prophet Alma told us in profound simplicity that “wickedness never was happiness.” (Alma 41:10.)
Right of Choice
Always when these destructive life-styles are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one sovereign virtue. That could be true only if there were but one of us. 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.
Tolerance
The word tolerance is also invoked as though it overrules everything else. Tolerance may be a virtue, but it is not the commanding one. There is a difference between what one is and what one does. What one is may deserve unlimited tolerance; what one does, only a measured amount. A virtue when pressed to the extreme may turn into a vice. Unreasonable devotion to an ideal, without considering the practical application of it, ruins the ideal itself.
Abortion
Nowhere is the right of choice defended with more vigor than with abortion. Having chosen to act, and a conception having occurred, it cannot then be unchosen. But there are still choices; always a best one.
Sometimes the covenant of marriage has been broken; more often none was made. In or out of marriage, abortion is not an individual choice. At a minimum, three lives are involved.
The scriptures tell us: “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6; italics added.)
Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a “thou shalt not.” Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice.
We face such sobering choices because we are the children of God.
The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part B
Withstanding the Evils of the World
Abortion
In view of the widespread public interest in the issue of abortion, we reaffirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed elective abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency of the Church warned against this evil. We have repeatedly counseled people everywhere to turn from the devastating practice of abortion for personal or social convenience.
The Church recognizes that there may be rare cases in which abortion may be justified—cases involving pregnancy by incest or rape; when the life or health of the woman is adjudged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy; or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But these are not automatic reasons for abortion. Even in these cases, the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other, and their bishop, and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.
The practice of elective abortion is fundamentally contrary to the Lord’s injunction, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.’ (D&C 59:6.) We urge all to preserve the sanctity of human life and thereby realize the happiness promised to those who keep the commandments of the Lord” (“Statement Issued on Abortion,” Church News, 19 Jan. 1991, 5).
True to the Faith:
In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. If you face questions about this matter, you can be secure in following the revealed will of the Lord. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. If you encourage an abortion in any way, you may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption,” pages 7–8).
The Case against Easier Abortion Laws
By Gilbert W. Scharffs
15. Christian-Judeo thought opposes abortion.
Religious leaders of many faiths are against most types of abortion. The Didache, an early Christian writing, includes this precept: “Thou shalt not procure abortion.”
A statement from the First Presidency in 1971 on the subject of abortion and sterilization reads in part: “We have given careful consideration to the question of proposed laws on abortion and sterilization. We are opposed to any modification, expansion, or liberalization of laws on these vital subjects.” 11
Elaborating on this statement is the following statement published in the June 1972 issue of the Priesthood Bulletin:
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.
“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.
“These observations must not be interpreted to mean that acts of abortion, except under circumstances explained in a preceding paragraph, are not of a serious nature. To tamper or interfere with any of the processes in the procreation of offspring is to violate one of the most sacred of God’s commandments—to multiply and replenish the earth. Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.
“Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6: ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.’ ”
Each person who believes that abortion is a sin and a crime against God and man must fortify himself with the arguments against this evil. Our goal should be, as the Book of Mormon states, to raise our children “to grow up unto the Lord.”
14. Abortion only strikes at the symptoms of the ills of society, not the causes.
The plight of unwanted children is one of the tragic problems of our society. Making it easier to empty life’s creative chamber is not the solution. Efforts should be made to solve the problem of why children are unwanted.
“One of the greatest challenges today,” Dr. Joe J. Christensen, associate commissioner of Latter-day Saint schools, has stated, “would be to strike at the causes rather than the symptoms of some of the deep and abiding problems in society, problems that cause some to feel that having an abortion is a justifiable option.”
Dr. Christensen continues: “After life has been taken, the problems that motivated this move still persist in all likelihood—problems such as poverty, injustice, intolerance, ignorance, immorality, and selfishness.” 10
13. Eliminating an imperfect fetus is extremely cruel discrimination.
Some feel that abortion is justified when there is a chance of a defective child’s being born. If we will not tolerate imperfections in human beings, it might make more sense to practice infanticide or genocide. Abortion is even worse because it doesn’t discriminate; it destroys the healthy as well as the deformed baby. “Every argument that can be made for aborting a fetus can also be made for killing the same fetus once it is born,” argues Professor R. Paul Ramsey of Princeton University.
Many devoted parents have proved that the birth of a defective child need not be tragic; often such a child becomes a focal point of family love. Eighty-five percent of the retarded can get jobs and adjust to society.
Speaking of her own child, Nobel Prizewinning author Pearl S. Buck stated: “A retarded child, a handicapped person, brings its own gift to life, even to the life of normal human beings.” 9
12. Laws on abortion are contrary to other laws pertaining to the rights of the unborn child.
The unborn child is perhaps the only minority that can’t speak for itself. It is completely helpless. Yet even the worst type of criminal is given every possible benefit, including the right to every legal procedure, from the right to counsel to the right to a trial by jury. But the unborn child who is eliminated by abortion and is innocent has none of these rights. Abortion gives one person rights over another without due process of law.
The United Nations Declaration of Rights of the Child states: “The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
How important it is that the law protect that most basic of all rights—the right of life, upon which all others are based!
Legal writers have pointed to the fact that, while the law is moving toward recognition of the unborn child as a person—with all of a person’s inalienable rights—the trend in abortion laws is to deny the existence of life. “With the exception of the abortion movement,” one attorney has noted, “the universal trend in the law is toward full recognition of the humanity of the unborn child.”
Courts in a number of states in the USA have accepted the principle that the unborn child is a person. The right of a child to recover damages for prenatal injuries has long been acknowledged in a number of cases. Even a century ago a Pennsylvania court held that “the civil rights of an infant … are fully protected at all periods after conception.”
11. Many abortion laws remove the father’s rights and responsibilities.
In any unwanted pregnancy, one-half of the responsibility rests with the father. Yet many of today’s laws allow abortion if the mother desires it. This does not permit the father any right or even knowledge of the situation, which can only lead to further abdication of his responsibilities as the father and denial of his right to prevent abortion.
Today a man (married or single) unwilling to accept the responsibility of fatherhood can be taken to court and, if convicted, forced to pay hospital, doctor, and other expenses. To force responsibility in one situation and to deny it in another is inconsistent justice.
10. Existing abortion laws already provide for the saving of the mother’s life.
With present medical techniques, the chances of a woman’s losing her life because of pregnancy are rare. Dr. R. J. Heffernan of Tufts put it even stronger in an address to the congress of the American College of Surgeons: “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion is either ignorant of modern medical methods of treating the complication of pregnancy or is unwilling to take the time to use them.” 8
The wording of revised abortion statutes is often so vague that it can be interpreted quite freely to cover almost any situation. There is, for example, no explanation of what is meant by the word “gravely” in the phrase “gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother.”
According to some laws, a doctor need only certify his “belief” in the existence of circumstances justifying the abortion. He need not offer any proof that the circumstances do in fact exist, nor is he even required to examine the patient.
Since all states already permit abortions to save a woman’s life, further modification in this area is not needed.
9. The future consequences of a smaller, younger population supporting an increasingly older population are formidable.
Already medical science has helped to lengthen life expectancy, and this pattern will undoubtedly continue. An older population needs to be supported and is less productive than a younger one. It takes hard-working people with an increasing productivity rate to produce the standard of living all segments of society want.
With the already decreasing birthrate in the USA, critical problems will be faced in just a few years if the present decline in the birthrate continues. A total of 800,000 fewer babies were born in the United States in 1968 than in 1961. This means that in 1976 there will be 800,000 fewer third graders in the nation’s classrooms than today and an increasingly disproportionate number of senior citizens.
8. When the state legalizes abortion for convenience, it promotes sexual promiscuity and other ills.
Another argument sanctioning freer abortions states that “85 percent of those who want them are married women, which doesn’t greatly affect the sexual activity of single people.” But now “experts agree that the abortion ratio between married and single [women] is now about 50–50 and that young women are experimenting with sex irresponsibly.” 7
During the first year Denmark liberalized its laws, there were only 439 legal abortions. Sixteen years later (and without a proportionate population increase), the number of abortions increased ten times, and there was an increase in the number of those illegally performed.
Unfortunately for many, the only moral principles that have some effect are the laws of the land. Law is an educator. If it allows the destruction of unwanted life, it unavoidably teaches that life is cheap. If easier abortions are sanctioned for any reason, promiscuous behavior is promoted.
7. Linking abortion to demography and the quality of life diverts attention from the real environmental issues.
Proponents of infanticide and euthanasia are insensitive to the higher purposes of life, and such suggestions are repulsive to family-oriented people everywhere. There also seems to be no definite corollary between population density and the incidence of crime or a poor quality of life.
Within the area of environmental control, those alarmists who claim that the increasing number of people is the only culprit responsible for our pollution problems are likely to obscure many other issues that urgently need to be solved.
6. Starvation is not the result of uncontrolled population growth.
The oft-repeated myth that one-half to two-thirds of the world’s people go to bed hungry has never been supported by facts. The World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reluctantly admitted that it defined as “malnourished” anyone who did not eat like the inhabitants of Western Europe, where overeating was more often a problem than undernutrition.
Dr. Collin Clark, who specializes in economics and population at Oxford University, maintains that even “at our high level of consumption, the world’s available agricultural land could feed over 40 billion people, before we made any attempt to reclaim mountains or deserts, or to obtain food from the ocean.” 6
There is abundant evidence that much of the world’s hunger is due to government mismanagement and superstitions of people against certain foods, rather than actual shortages.
Population experts discount the explosionists’ view that in a future time there will be one person for every square yard of the earth’s surface. Population growth is actually leveling off in many areas in the world and even declining in some.
5. No one can tell at what point a fetus is viable.
Since, at the present stage of medical achievement, a fetus cannot be kept alive outside the mother’s womb before about twenty-four weeks after conception, the new abortion laws allow life to be taken prior to this time.
Some argue that “no one knows when life begins,” so they reason, “Why not consider it at birth?” However, the argument might just as well be reversed to state that if no one really knows when life starts, why not consider it as life at the point when the life-developing processes begin.
The genetic potential that directs the development of all human life is fully established at the moment of conception when the mother’s egg is fertilized by the father’s sperm. The factors that influence temperament, physique, eye, hair, skin color, and even intellectual capacity are all present.
At four weeks the fetus has a functioning heart, before the mother is aware that she is pregnant; by eight weeks there is a central nervous system and ingestive and digestive systems; brain cells, ears, eyes, nose, toes, and fingers are also forming. The baby can even move his head and bend his body, and he is sensitive to touch.
The simple fact is that at no point during a pregnancy is any human capable of knowing when the spirit of life takes up a new abode.
4. Fetal tissue is different from all other tissue.
Some would say that the fetus inside the mother is merely a piece of tissue. However, Dr. Robert E. Cooke, chief of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has pointed out three basic differences: “First, fetal tissue is unique. There never was nor ever will be another piece of tissue identical to it.
“Second, cell tissue composition of the fetus is distinct from its mother’s tissue and would be rejected from her body were it not enclosed in the amniotic sac. … Your tonsils are yours and yours alone—but a mother’s fetal tissue is not hers.
“A third and even greater difference between fetal and tonsil tissue is the potential of the fetal tissue.” 5
3. Abortion brings physical risks to the mother and future children.
Although medical statistics show that legal abortions have one of the lowest mortality rates of all types of surgery, there are some problems to consider. When abortions are performed, a 2 percent sterility rate is considered a reasonable estimate, and the risks of infection are also increased because sometimes the uterine cavity must be invaded, which is rarely the case in normal childbirth.
2. Abortion can cause more psycho-neurotic problems than it can cure.
Today, mental reasons are given more frequently than physiological ones for obtaining abortions. Yet a growing number of psychiatrists state that genuine cases of mental sickness arising from unwanted pregnancy are rare.
Dr. Victor Calef, of the Mt. Sinai Clinic in San Francisco, believes that “abortion itself is a potential source of psychiatric illness and a basis for mental breakdown. For this reason there should be no psychiatric grounds for abortion. There are only two kinds of women who would not be bothered by an abortion—a woman already severely mentally disturbed and a woman completely free of psychiatric symptoms.” 3 Dr. Calef concludes by saying that he has never met anyone free of psychiatric symptoms.
A common argument for abortion for psychiatric reasons is the threat of suicide. While many authorities regard such tactics as bluffs designed to force a doctor into approving such an operation, Dr. Myre Sim, a British psychiatrist, has commented that “statistical evidence shows that the incidence of suicide is lower among pregnant women than among the population generally. The best advice a doctor can give a pregnant woman who threatens suicide is to tell her to stay pregnant.” 4
1. Legalizing abortions may not have reduced the number of illegal abortions.
“I have seen the results of enough back-street abortions to make me in favor of the new laws” is a frequent argument. While there are many other factors involved, there has instead been a significant increase in the number of illegal abortions in many areas where they are sanctioned.
“Thank heaven for little babies; what would we do without them?” sighed my wife, as she cuddled our new little one. With our new son’s arrival, there seemed to be more love and harmony among our entire family.
Most Latter-day Saints know that raising children, as our Father in heaven has commanded, brings one of life’s greatest joys and helps fulfill the purpose of our creation:
“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
“Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. …” (Ps. 127:3–5.)
Furthermore, the Lord has proclaimed: “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 19:14.)
To Adam and Eve the Lord commanded: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. …” (Gen. 1:28; see also Gen. 35:11.)
In our day the First Presidency of the Church has reaffirmed this law by stating: “We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.” 1
Yet the conviction that abortions are wrong is being shattered by the winds of reform. Increasingly, insistent cries are heard that a pregnant woman (married or single) has the right to terminate the developing life within her. The pressure is now shifting from limited changes in the law to a well-organized and well-financed drive for abortion on demand. Many spokesmen for planned parenthood, women’s liberation, and other groups are behind this movement.
On March 16, 1972, the Federal Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, which had been appointed in 1970 by the president of the United States, issued its formal recommendations. This report urged removal of most restrictions on abortion by all of the states. It also recommended that under some circumstances the federal government pay for abortions and that insurance companies include in their policies specific coverage for hospital and surgical costs incurred by women who have abortions.
An early and significant development toward changing the abortion laws in the United States occurred in 1959, when the American Law Institute presented a model penal code advocating numerous changes in state laws, including loosening of existing abortion laws. Up to that time, these statutes permitted abortion under only very limited circumstances.
The first states to enact new legislation were California, Colorado, and North Carolina in 1967. Some fifteen states now have more liberal laws.
The American Medical Association has also spoken out for relaxing existing laws.
Dr. John A. Harper, a psychologist, speaking at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, urged that the “world’s governments take the right to produce from the people.” 2 And a 1971 bill in the Hawaii legislature would have compelled the sterilization of all women after the second child.
In 1965 a Gallup Poll in the United States showed that only 15 percent of the adults favored abortion if a woman wanted one. By 1969 a similar survey showed an increase to 40 percent.
Liberalized abortion has been thwarted recently in the courts or legislatures of several states; however, many people are being deceived and persuaded by pro-abortionists to embrace this inhuman concept. Therefore, the many arguments against making abortions easier to obtain need to be examined.
LDS.org
Melissa (name has been changed) had always wanted children. But not like this—not alone and away from the Church. At 29, Melissa found herself pregnant, single, and uncertain.
Her situation is not unique. According to statistics from 2000, one out of every three births in the United States (1.34 million) is to an unmarried woman. 1 Sadly, those births represent only about 49 percent of pregnancies to single women. According to a 1999 study, 39 percent of pregnant single women choose to abort their pregnancies. 2
“I’ve always been against abortion,” Melissa says. “But all of a sudden I was in that place. It seemed like an easy way out. No one would have to find out. Nothing would have to change. I wouldn’t have to be embarrassed. But I knew if I had done it, I would never have gotten over it.”
Instead, Melissa decided to seek help from LDS Family Services even though she had not been active in the Church for some time. LDS Family Services is a Church-sponsored nonprofit organization that, among other things, provides free counseling for birth mothers.
The Divine Institution of Marriage
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
Preparing Children for Their Community Roles
Ways for Families to Be Involved Citizens
According to Elder N. Eldon Tanner, “a member of the Church can honor and sustain the law and make the greatest contribution to his country and to the welfare of mankind by:
“1. Obeying strictly all the laws of the land and teaching his children by precept and by example to honor and sustain the law and those in authority in the home, in the community, in the Church. …
“2. Using his best influence to improve the laws by all legal means at his disposal.
“3. Striving to elect good, honorable men to office and actively supporting them.
“4. Being prepared to accept office and serve diligently in the best interests of his community or country.
“5. Observing and keeping the laws of God.” (Instructor, Oct. 1963, p. 352.)
In recent years the First Presidency has frequently urged Church members as citizens to join with their neighbors in vigorously opposing such evils as pornography, abortion, and the availability of liquor to youth. Acting as concerned citizens (not as Church representatives) members have in many cases helped achieve tighter abortion laws and removal of obscene magazines in stores. Other members have acted to place curbs on young people’s access to liquor.
“I Have a Question,” Ensign, Dec 1977, 23–25
How can we as Church members be appropriately involved in community causes?
Wendell J. Ashton, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Dec. 1977, 24–25
Wendell J. Ashton, managing director, Church Public Communications The Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith that “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.” (D&C 58:27.) Joseph Smith and other Church leaders have since encouraged our people to work toward improving the moral, cultural, and physical environment—as well as the spiritual—in the areas where they live.
A number of times in recent years the First Presidency has urged Church members as citizens to join with their neighbors in vigorously opposing such evils as pornography, abortion, and the availability of liquor to youth. Latter-day Saints acting as concerned citizens (not as Church representatives) have in many cases responded admirably. In some places Saints have helped achieve tighter laws on abortion, curtailment of obscene motion pictures, and curbs on young people’s access to liquor.
Certainly if we are to have for ourselves and our families a more wholesome environment, we as concerned citizens must ever be vigilant in watching legislation and the enforcement of laws. Moral pollution is too often the price we pay for indifference. We should constantly keep in mind that big money is made in such businesses as pornography and liquor, which means that well-paid professionals are working to increase sales and patronage.
Opposing these things also takes time, hard work, talent, and dedication. For example, I know of a Latter-day Saint woman who for years has toiled hard and effectively in a community organization that is fighting obscenity. Under her dedicated leadership, local ordinances for controlling pornography have been passed. A respected attorney and a successful businessman, both active Church members, have for years been key members of a citizens’ council that “watchdogs” liquor laws in their state.
Latter-day Saints also should be involved in bringing positive benefits to their community. A mother in our ward, a stalwart in the Church with a good family, has found time to lead out in creating and funding a recreational park for the elementary school our daughter attended at the time. Another ward member is a leader in promoting civic drama. Another neighbor helps with the ballet; another, the symphony.
President Spencer W. Kimball has set the example: before he was called to the Council of Twelve, he was a stake president, yet he was also a district governor of Rotary International and an effective community builder in Arizona.
And much good can often result from even a little time invested—a letter to an editor or lawmaker, a turn in picketing an obscene movie.
While Latter-day Saints should engage in community causes, they should maintain a good balance. Their family should come first. Church activity should not be neglected. I knew a man years ago who was so caught up in community causes that his home and yard became a neighborhood eyesore. Another was so busy in politics and civic undertakings that his own children drifted into delinquency.
But for the well-organized Latter-day Saint, there usually is time to be a concerned, involved citizen. It may mean one or two fewer television shows a week, or one less ball game a month—but it is worth it. Even more, it is vital, if we are to have the kind of communities we need for a full flowering of gospel living and the joy that is its reward.
“Often the question is asked, ‘What should unmarried parents do then?’ One of the most important things they should do is to seek help from their parents and their bishop. Loving parents and an understanding bishop can help them as they begin the vital process of repentance. They can then help the young unwed parents to make eternal decisions. Whenever possible, unwed parents should marry and build a home. When this is not possible, adoption through Church Social Services is preferred, so that the infant can be sealed to loving, eager parents in an eternal family. A baby needs a family—a father and a mother. The Lord intended babies to have families, and for families to be eternal.
“When young men and women create life by sinful behavior, the very least they can do to begin their personal atonement is to preserve the life of their child—whether or not they place the infant with adoptive parents. Another important thing each unwed parent must know is that abortion would only compound the problem—both here and hereafter. Abortion should not even be considered as a possible choice” (“A Visit with the Prophet,” Filmstrip, 1976).
—President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985)
Church Excerpts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local Church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion. "Issues Resources" 2006
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. If you encourage an abortion in any way, you may be subject to Church discipline. True to Faith, 2004
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer. Ibid.
The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
1. Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer. Church Handbook, 1998
The practice of elective abortion is fundamentally contrary to the Lord's injunction: "Thou shall not steal, neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). We urge all to preserve the sanctity of human life and thereby realize the happiness promised to those who keep the commandments of the Lord. Deseret News, Jan. 12, 1991
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution has not favored or opposed specific legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
Inasmuch as this issue is likely to arise in all states in the United States of America and in many other nations of the world in which the Church is established, it is impractical for the Church to take a position on specific legislative proposals on this important subject.
However, we continue to encourage our members as citizens to let their voices be heard in appropriate and legal ways that will evidence their belief in the sacredness of life. Ibid.
As far as has been revealed, the sin of abortion is one for which a person may repent and gain forgiveness. Church News, June 5, 1976
The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.
Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.
Members of the Church guilty of being parties in the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the fifty-ninth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, "Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."
As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:
"As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known. He has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That He has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness."
This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin. Church News, Jan. 27, 1973
The Church takes the view that any tampering with the fountains of life is serious, both morally and physiologically. The Lord's command imposed upon all Latter-day Saints is to "multiply and replenish the earth" [Gen. 1:28]. Nevertheless, there may be conditions where abortion could be justified, but such conditions must be determined acting upon the advice of competent, reliable physicians, preferably members of the Church, and in accordance with the laws pertaining thereto.
No definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as known, He has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That He has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness. First Presidency, letter dated Nov. 2, 1970
To take means to prevent the due process of nature following conception is a crime. David O. McKay to "Dear Brother," Mar. 6, 1942
[N]o one who has deliberately committed murder can be permitted to be baptized into the Church of Christ, and we regard those who intentionally destroy their children before birth as included in this prohibition. Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith to Job Pingree, Jan. 23, 1894
You ask me if you shall baptize a person whom you know to be guilty of foeticide. I presented the question to the Apostles, in council, and it was decided that you ought not; that the commission of this sin, common and frequent though it be, is next akin to murder, and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Franklin D. Richards to Robert G. Berrett, Nov. 14, 1879
Bam! what now! guess the church is not pro-abortion. ;)
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son aagainst the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
The scriptures tell us: "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it. (D&C 59:6
; italics added.)
Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a "thou shalt not." Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice. (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Nov. 1990, p. 85.)
Here's an interesting video on California's proposition 8 regarding marriage. It has nothing to do with abortion but it has everything to do with the family.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319
SWEET!! great video! the main reason that I dont want prop 8 to go through is because it will give them a right to adopt children equally with parents who have a mother and a father -- A child deserves a mother and a father and there are SOOOOO many good families who go on waiting lists for YEARS to adopt and dont get to, and in this situation the children would be sent to homosexual families-- denying that childs right to a mother and a father-- VERY IMPORTANT!!!
Post a Comment