More Thoughts on Abortion
Posted by Dave Keller on June 16th, 2006
This week I am going to showcase some of the internet-accessible reading I have done since last week’s dialogue on abortion from the entries Thoughts on Abortion and Abortion: a Catholic Overview.
Mormon Development
In describing, Mormon development on abortion, I supplemented my research of primary resources by using Lester Bush’s 1976 Dialogue article entitled Birth Control among the Mormons. Since then I have learned of his follow-up 1985 article that contains a section (p.48-55) that isolates the development on the abortion issue. In Ethical Issues in Reproductive Medicine: A Mormon Perspective, Dr. Bush provides more context on how two of the three classes of Mormons exceptions began to be articulated by Mormon leaders and officially by the Mormon Church itself. As a reminder, True to the Faith, a recent correlated doctrinal work succinctly articulates these exceptions:
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.
Some of Dr. Bush’s key points:
- He discusses the spike in interest the First Presidency (John Taylor and George Q. Cannon) in conjunction with the nationwide 1870′s anti-abortion crusade that led to many states adopting laws including Utah. Utah’s law included an exemption be made where “necessary to preserve [the] life [of the mother].” Conservative Catholics would be entirely comfortable with the rhetoric made by these LDS leaders that did not distinguish abortion from infanticide.
- Dr. Bush recognizes that despite these opinions, the Church itself did not take an official stand. What he says correlates well with what I have written about in my Mormon Doctrine Style Guide entry. He writes:
- In 1958, we see Pres. Reuben J. Clark, a First Presidency member generally against abortion, counsel a women to seek the advice of a physician and the advice of Lord through prayer in what to do in a situation that may have qualified as a health related exception. Compare this to the Hugh B. Brown quote from that period that I previously quoted.
- The next milestone was the Mormon church’s successful 1969 resistance to legislation that, as Dr. Bush summarizes, was designed to allow ” abortions where the mother’s mental or physical health (not solely her life) was at stake, where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if the child was likely to have ‘grave or permanent physical disability or mental retardation.’” The First Presidency opposed liberalizing the law, but in some private correspondence and later in increasingly official statements leading up to the 1973 statement I already covered, stated that there are exceptions to a general rule.
- Between Elder Nelson’s conference address and a 1976 Pres. Spencer Kimball interview (cited below) that accompanied a Church-distributed anti-abortion video, I get the impression that even if situation technically qualifies for exceptional consideration, Mormon church leaders should get a message to encourage looking for other solutions:
- Dr. Bush notes that the above quote from Pres. Kimball did not mark a departure from official policy, but is representative of the tensions that exist that make Mormon exceptions anything but automatic. The tension in the rape exception comes from forcing the rape victim (as opposed to the baby) to have to suffer from the sins of her rapist. Shortly after the video’s distribution, the First Presidency reiterated the rape exception because rape could produce “serious emotional trauma in the victim.”
- Dr. Bush also notes that leaders have also worked to indirectly undercut liberal use of the serious birth defect exception. In the aforementioned interview, Pres. Kimball, lobbied against indiscriminant usage by declaring “no one, save the Lord himself, has the right to decide if a baby should or should not be permitted to live.” Presumably this turns the heat up on someone considering an abortion in this case to obtain the mind and will of the Lord through prayer.
Notwithstanding its authoritarian image, Mormonism in fact has very few authoritative doctrines. Its canon, the standard works, rarely bears unequivocally on twentieth-century issues. Principles continue to be extracted and applied, but there is always a strong subjective or “inspired” interpretive element in these applications. Moreover, unless these interpretations are publicly issued by the First Presidency  which is rarely the case  they do not attain the status of formal doctrines of the Church. Even those so issued are subject to later revision, though an effort is made to avoid explicit rejection of a previously published view. The record on birth control illustrates both these points. What most often passes for “doctrine” within Mormon society is, in reality, a widely held consensus, perhaps espoused in sermon or print by Mormon General Authorities, but ultimately without formal sanction by the First Presidency. In theory, such a consensus is not binding on Church members. In practice, it is not unlikely to change.
Occasionally the question of pregnancy by rape will be asked. Medical evidence indicates that this is an extremely rare situation. But regardless of how the pregnancy was caused, abortion would greatly compound the wrong. An unborn baby must not be punished for the sins of his father. Letting the baby be born and placing him in an adoptive home would surely be a better solution for an unfortunate situation.
Former Mormon First Presidency members who have historically spoke on abortion (left to right, top to bottom) 1. John Taylor, 2. George Q. Cannon, 3. Hugh B. Brown, 4. J. Reuben Clark, 5. Spencer W. Kimball.
The Current LDS Stance
My first essay on this blog lightly covered the current Mormon position that allows for exceptions while at the same time strongly denouncing abortion from a general perspective. I pointed out significant doctrinal statements from all four levels of the Mormon doctrinal hierarchy. Leading the way is D&C 59:6 because of its prominent citation is other doctrinal texts. One might cautiously add passages that condemn murder and others that justify killing in exceptional circumstances as also being relevant. The Law of Moses in Ex 21:22 proscribed punishment for beating a woman if it caused the death of a fetus. Additionally the Savior’s condemnation of offending (i.e. causing to stumble) children in Matt 18:6 can be extended, as Elder Packer has, to cover all forms of inflicted suffering on innocents that haven’t reached maturity yet.
While Mormon canonized doctrine gives us much to contemplate, it is less than straight forward to apply it to all modern moral dilemmas. The First Presidency statements on abortion and possible exceptions constitute official doctrine on the subject. The third level, general conference doctrine has given much instruction on the subject of abortion. I surveyed some remarks in my prior post but let me hightlight a few more. There has been 68 mentions of abortion in the correlated era in conference, here are some of the more noteworthy:
- I mentioned Dr./Elder Nelson’s landmark 1986 address that provides a brief rationale for exceptions, while arguing the existence of such cases shouldn’t be used as a pawn to justify the general case of abortions. He counters pro-Choice arguments, affirming that women are not free to choose the moral consequences. He states that life medically begins at conception and that debates about when the spirit enters the body are irrelevant. He is passive when outlining exceptional cases, while spending the majority of his sermon undercutting them:
- While most Mormon conference addresses relentlessly decry the evils of abortion, Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone shared a touching story of a woman who profoundly repented and through the atonement of Christ was forgiven of her sin and allowed a temple recommend. Elder Robert D. Hales also illustrates the principles of repentance by relating a similar experience.
- While many addresses are careful about noting exceptions, there is abundant literature that just preaches the general rule. Elder Boyd. K. Packer warns that over-analyzing exceptions can dilute the message. He said:
When we speak plainly of divorce, abuse, gender identity, contraception, abortion, parental neglect, we are thought by some to be way out of touch or to be uncaring. Some ask if we know how many we hurt when we speak plainly. … Those who ask have no idea how much we care; you know little of the sleepless nights, of the endless hours of work, of prayer, of study, of travelâ€â€all for the happiness and redemption of mankind. Because we do know and because we do care, we must teach the rules of happiness without dilution, apology, or avoidance. That is our calling. … [W]e’d like not to take care of the exception first. We will establish the rule first, and then we’ll see to the exception.
- Emeritus Church Patriarch, Eldred G. Smith, makes an interesting comment that he couches in speculative terms. While I don’t disagree with likening D&C 132 to abortion, I would caution about taking it so literally. I have recently studied Nauvoo marital theology, so I understand the scripture’s first readers would not have read it this way. Rather, the concepts of eternal marriage and passing an Abrahamic-like test by accepting Joseph Smith’s teachings on plural marriage were being coupled with teachings on getting one’s calling and election made sure. The two concepts are still intricately related as keeping one’s sacred marital vows faithfully will lead to election, but not as immediately for us as it was for Joseph Smith’s contemporaries that were being severely tested. The only way to lose one’s election was through murder or betrayal of Christ (the unpardonable sin), two things that are intricately related. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the descendent of Joseph Smith’s brother, Hyrum, are worth reflecting on:
Infrequently, instances may occur in which the continuation of pregnancy could be life-threatening to the mother. When deemed by competent medical authorities that the life of one must be terminated in order to save the life of the other, many agree that it is better to spare the mother. But these circumstances are rare, particularly where modern medical care is available.
Another sympathetic concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The tragedy of this despoilment is compounded because, in such relationships, freedom of choice is denied the woman who is innocently involved.
But less than 3 percent of all abortions are performed for these two reasons. 8 The other 97 percent are performed for what may be termed “reasons of convenience.â€Â
Some argue for abortion because a malformed child may result. The harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy are real.
Choose to live the law of celestial marriage. The command in the marriage ceremony is to multiply and replenish the earth. In the Doctrine and Covenants when the Lord is referring to the blessings of celestial marriage (He is talking about husband-wife relationships), He makes this statement: “And if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood,†and so forth. (D&C 132:19.) What do you think He’s talking about? Is it possible that He was referring to abortion? Think about it! Is there more innocent life than that of the unborn child? And why is murder referred to when the Lord is talking about marriage? Conception is a contract with God that you will create a body, and He contracts to put the spirit of life within it. Any covenant of the Lord cannot be broken without a penalty.
I have probably dwelled on the level of doctrine for too long. A constant theme was to generally decry abortion and to sometimes mention the exceptions in passing. Some addresses tackled inadequate reasons to participate in an abortion and often declared such reasoning as being inspired by Satan. Very little justification will be found to support an abortion even if it seems to qualify as an exception. I will pass over analysis of the last tier of correlated doctrine only to take notice of Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ analysis of exceptions to fill in the gap where very little is said in higher sources. While Oaks stresses that his conclusions are founded on religious grounds, he approvingly cites an argument made on secular grounds of a Mormon acquaintance:
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.
Some Statistics Relevant to Pregnancy Terminations
In entitling this section, I had to come up with a broad enough title to discuss abortion, ectopic pregnancies, and viability. I realize this particular categorization may make Catholics uncomfortable by blurring the distinction between abortion and licitly performed surgeries terminating ectopic pregnancies. Legally or medically, an ectopic surgery is generally not considered an abortion which is limited to intrauterine pregnancies. However, whether a procedure constitutes a direct attack on a fetus is a primary consideration of whether a procedure is licit or illicit by Catholic theologians. Further complications are explained by a Catholic couple who tell their story along with theological and medical advice they received along the way. A fascinating–but I am guessing, against the grain–response to that story can be found at the same site. Bear’s coverage of the issue is much better than I briefly do here.
For Mormons, either type of procedure is a rather straight forward application of the life of the mother exception. Looking at the problem in terms of opportunity cost, one death is inevitable regardless of action. Not doing something will additionally result in a real threat for a second death, while taking advantage of current medical technology will eliminate this threat. Therefore, the economic decision is to choose the better of two outcomes. Once this decision is made, the medical tradeoffs can weighed on what type of surgery to opt for. If not detected early enough, the available treatments tradeoff between reducing fertility and reducing the risk of repeat ectopic complications.
The statistics on ectopic pregnancies are mixed. The Mayo Clinic reports 1 in every 40 to 100 pregnancies are ectopic. Another site reports 1 in 250, or 70,000 cases anually within the US. A third site reports 60,000 ectopic terminations a year compared 6 million pregnancies a year, only 2/3 of which are successfully carried to term. There are approximately twice as many abortions as there are miscarriages and stillbirths (1.2 million to 626 thousand). Another 150 thousand children are born with birth defects. The March of Dimes reports an infant mortality rate due to birth defects of 146 per 100 thousand live births which accounts for only 4% of total birth defect percentage and 20% of the infant mortality rate.
According to the CDC there were 28,000 infant deaths in 2002 or .7 % of the total live birth number. Over half of these, according to a NVSR report, were suffered by preterm infants; 12% of all infants are born prior to 36 weeks, with 2% from 28-32 weeks and 10% from 32-36 weeks. For 2001, the mortality rate for each term were tabulated by NCHS: 40.6% of infants born earlier than 28 weeks died followed by 4.6% for 28-31 weeks, and 1.2% for 31-35 weeks. An NVSR report for 2003 adds some insight: 34.6% of births occur to unwed mothers, 11% of mothers admitted to smoking during pregnancy, and 27% of total births were done through C-section. A 2001 NVSR chart reports 399 maternal deaths, 23 of which were due to ectopic pregnancies.
For abortion statistics, Wm. Robert Johnston has compiled what seems to reliable data for the United States and other countries. Eyeballing his chart that traces abortions vs. year and a comparison of live births seems to confirm the other site’s abortion percentages, where almost 25% of live births + abortions are actually the latter. Utah has the lowest abortion rate at 6.3% with the highest I saw being Washington D.C. at 42%. The western states surrounding Utah were also fairly low: Idaho(6.9%), Wyoming(10.8), Colorado(12.4), Arizona(11.7), New Mexico(17.3), and Nevada(23.0). For some maps based on different data sources see here. While Catholics make up about 25% of the US, a nationwide survey show 27% of abortions are performed on Catholics. I was asked to compare Utah statistics to places where faithful Catholics are found and not the secular Northeast where Catholics are a slight majority in two states, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In Ireland where it is 88% Roman Catholic, they have a low abortion rate of 9.3%. Nearby, Protestant England has a rate of 22.5%.
Trying to get rates that involve Mormon exceptions in the abortion policy is a little difficult. Johnston argues the statistics put out by organizations such as Planned Parenthood overinflate sympathy category numbers by a factor of three as they follow a pro-Choice agenda. Between 1997 and 2003, Utah reported the following reasons for abortion: .84% due to rape, .03% due to incest, .3% because the mother’s life was endangered, and .38% due to fetal malformation. Johnston estimate rates for the nation are rape(.3%), incest (.03%), mother’s life(.2%), mother’s health(1%), and fetal health(.5%).
Looked at through either of these statistical breakdowns, Mormon exceptions at most cover 2% of abortions in practice. Scaled to the scope of the entire United States, this would amount to less than 24,000 deaths/year. The infant mortality rate is higher at 28,000 a year. It is dwarfed by the number of ectopic pregnancy terminations (60,000) and miscarriages (600,000). The number of mother’s lives being saved is from 2400 to 3600, whereas the number who actually die from pregnancy complications is 399. Compare about 6000 infant deaths due to birth defects to that same figure or less in terms of early detection of fetal health. If estimates are correct, there are 32,000 rape-caused pregnancies of which 69% to 89% are chosen to be carried to term despite the additional trauma. Yes, Catholics look at most these numbers as way too high, as even one illicit pregnancy termination is reprehensible. But from a philosophical point of view, the problem of evil is much tougher to justify when considering how much nature is allowed to take its toll through miscarriages and infant deaths than the individual cases where a devout Mormon wonders if his or her exceptional and rare actions can be justified.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
“But from a philosophical point of view, the problem of evil is much tougher to justify when considering how much nature is allowed to take its toll through miscarriages and infant deaths than the individual cases where a devout Mormon wonders if his or her exceptional and rare actions can be justified.”
Can you clarify this statement for me? I’m not sure I get the point.
Thanks
June 16th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I’m with Steve — can that point be clarified?
Also wanted to comment on this:
The tension in the rape exception comes from forcing the rape victim (as opposed to the baby) to have to suffer from the sins of her rapist. Shortly after the video’s distribution, the First Presidency reiterated the rape exception because rape could produce “serious emotional trauma in the victim.â€Â
Life of the mother cases aside, I think that this point illustrates a focus of the differences between Catholic and LDS views. The LDS view seems to be arguing that the suffering of the mother is greater than the suffering of the child — but how can this be, since the mother’s suffering is non-lethal, and the child’s suffering is death?
Moreover, Catholic thinkers usually assert that the mother in the case of rape has already suffered major emotional trauma, and we cannot change that fact. But what we most certainly should not do is contribute to her emotional suffering by giving her the opportunity to dwell on whether or not she killed a child.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Steve,
I think I was trying to juxtapose too many ideas in one sentence. Instead of “justify” I should have said “come to terms with.” The problem of evil, as you are probably aware of, requires sophisticated philosophy to solve. Simply stated, a solulution must justify why an all-powerful God allows bad things like evil and suffering to happen. My sentence was my way of kicking the problems associated with opting for an abortion in exceptional circumstances upstairs. I find it easier to sympathize and justify a decision maker faced with a tough decision because even God is making decisions to passively allow bad things to happen, perhaps for a greater good. Likewise, He can also inspire a decision maker to commit an abortion for the greater good of all parties involved and only He is informed of all the criteria and individuals’ needs to make a perfect decision.
I hope that makes more sense this time around.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
I can’t answer for Steve, but that clarifies it for me, Dave. But it does bring up some questions to help me understand the LDS view:
1. So, in LDS thought one may do evil that good may result?
2. Why is this calculus — namely, “[God] can also inspire a decision maker to commit an abortion for the greater good of all parties involved” — restricted only to cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s health? Why could not a child concieved in ordinary, consensual, marital relations be aborted if the parents believed, for whatever reason, that it is “for the greater good?”
In other words — you guys do seem to draw lines somewhere. What exactly are those lines, and why are they chosen?
June 17th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Bear,
I consider your counter-argument to the brief rationale used in a 1976 to actually be very effective, and in fact is similar to Pres. Kimball\’s arguments, although his are couched in terms of sin instead of suffering. The thing to remember though is that policy in the Mormon faith is usually not announced or accompanied by a lot of reasoning. Rather, Mormon consent is most readily won from argument from authority. Those in authority are presumed to be entitled to receive revelation for the entire church. From my outsider\’s POV, it appears the leaders of the LDS church over a 20 year period debated the ramifications of allowing members to prayerfully consider what to do in exceptional circumstances. Once the First Presidency in the early 70\’s decided on a course they presumably felt that course was confirmed through spiritual guidance. But the nature of spiritual guidance often endorses a course of action and not whatever pre-confirmation philosophy was instrumental in helping prepare the brethren to arrive at a decision. For a Mormon like me to provide a theological reason for the policy when I can only see what the brethren were thinking through a dark glass (to borrow Paul\’s KJV language) would be in Elder Oaks\’ words \”un-neccessary risk taking.\”
I would be interested in hearing your critique of Elder Oak\’s secular argument. As far as I know, his article, originally a speech at BYU, is the most detailed defense of the policy in all of correlated doctrine.
Let me present another take on the tension between Pres. Kimball\’s stance and the Church\’s official stance. This comes from a non-Mormon, Jeff Needle\’s, review of a recent bio of Kimball by Kimball\’s son. I got the book for Christmas but I haven\’t read it yet. This was posted on the Planet LDS blog.
see: http://planet.kzion.com/?m=200509
June 18th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The Oaks’ argument is one I have seen before. The gist is, the woman only has responsibility for the life she is carrying because she has to take responsibility for the actions she engaged in which created it. In the case of rape, however, she did not willingly engage in the actions, and thus has no responsibility.
I have never found this argument to be very convincing, either when it is used against abortion in general or to defend exceptions. It’s always struck me as something someone might make up in order to justify what they had already decided, rather than a conclusion come to after the arguement. In other words, it’s as if they already decided they were going to be against abortion but allow the exceptions, and then made up a rationale to support that.
I’ll answer it with two analogies:
First:
Suppose you driving down the busy street and find a baby crawling on the side of road, no parents in sight. You didn’t put it there; the baby is “not your responsibility”, but can you really justify leaving it there, simply because it will inconvenience you?
I might name this the Good Samaritan principle. Simply because we are not responsible for the situations that others (such as the baby we may be carrying due to a rape) does not mean that we have no obligations towards them. God knows that we will encounter these needy people, and He will definitely give us what we need to help them. It strikes me as distrustful of God to think that He would place us in a situation where we had to choose an evil action because we didn’t think we could handle it otherwise.
Second analogy:
Suppose you are abducted and sedated, and when you wake up you find that you have been mechanically attached to another human being. He is being kept alive through your body, and if you detach yourself he will die. Can you legitimately do it?
According to the principle of double effect, yes. But can you walk to the other bed and shoot the guy in the head to kill him? No.
But that’s exactly what abortion is — deliberate and direct killing of the child.
So, what I think the Oaks’ argument leaves out is that you are not simply “refusing to care” or “refusing to take responsbility.” When you choose an abortion you are, in effect, putting a gun to the baby’s head. You aren’t just abandoning, you are killing.
June 18th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Ack! Sorry for all the typos above. Writing too fast.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Bear,
I can understand why you don’t find the argument convincing. But that is because you have other grounds for believing that direct attacks on human life are always immoral. You take a leap of faith that things will work out if the right course is taken when you say: “It strikes me as distrustful of God to think that He would place us in a situation where we had to choose an evil action because we didn’t think we could handle it otherwise.”
But for me that is jumping way ahead by labeling an action “evil.” In essence, it appears to me (but may not be the case) you assume Oaks argument is an ad hoc justification for an abortion. It isn’t. It is an argument for making a prayerful, divinely guided choice in which one learns God’s will about what is optimal for everyone involved in a moral gray area. And this is where Oaks and I make our leap of faith that God will a) reveal his will in individual cases and b) take into consideration how much an individual can handle; and if in His infinite foresight sees that carrying a pregnancy to term is indeed too much to be handled, He may release that individual from any apparent obligations, and c) take into account the needs of child. I can see where allowing a child to be born in a single parent, non-supportive environment (marriage wasn’t designed as a divine institution for nothing), or farmed to foster homes, or adopted by a non-religious family would all be more spiritually devastating than alternative realities that only God can completely understand. In the eternal perspective it may be better to reassign that child’s spirit to another body or allow it to be raised to maturity during the millenium (both of which are speculative options in the Mormon faith.) I also consider it suboptimal for a child to come into the world via a coerced sense of duty rather than a chosen act of love. It is suboptimal for the rape victim to have a child that way, too.
Like the Good Samaritan example, I feel that the woman should have a choice in whether to give birth to a child if she had no choice as to the conception. The Good Samaritan had such a choice and it is because he made such a choice that we are moved by the story. He went beyond the call of perceived duty. Seen another way it is the raped woman lying beaten on the side of the road. What is God, the ultimate Samaritan willing to do to comfort her? Will He, in an act of compassion, waive the obligations that might be expected if she wasn’t in such a sorry state?
The sin of abortion in the case of rape should be answered on the head of the rapist, not only him but distributed over all rapists. They are all playing with dice in getting their victims pregnant and whether the woman aborts is a second dice toss. Despite some of the randomness, there is a causal chain of events set in motion by the perpetrator and it is he that should answer for them. God presumably would only hold a victim responsible if He gave personal revelation to carry the pregnancy to term or if such revelation wasn’t dilligently sought after before acting.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Dave,
In essence, it appears to me (but may not be the case) you assume Oaks argument is an ad hoc justification for an abortion. It isn’t.
Yes, it strikes me as ad hoc at first glance, but I try to treat it as simply an ordinary argument when I critique. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
I can see where allowing a child to be born in a single parent, non-supportive environment (marriage wasn’t designed as a divine institution for nothing), or farmed to foster homes, or adopted by a non-religious family would all be more spiritually devastating than alternative realities that only God can completely understand.
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that invoking “only what God can completely understand” serves as a better argument for going through with the pregnancy despite the complications it presents to us. “What seems evil God works for good,” as the scriptures say.
But again, that is because we view abortion as a priori evil.
To reject abortion as a priori evil strikes me as saying that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a baby because of inconvenience in the life of the mother. I hope you understand why that is hard for me to accept.
In the eternal perspective it may be better to reassign that child’s spirit to another body or allow it to be raised to maturity during the millenium (both of which are speculative options in the Mormon faith.)
Right, we cannot invoke either of those. We could however just as easily say that the child will go to Heaven, and therefore will be better off. But then one must ask: why not justify suicide, or situations such as Andrea Yates in Texas drowning her children because she felt they would be better off dead? In other words, hardships are experienced not only during pregnancy and birth, but in life afterwards as well, but we do not condone infanticide on those grounds.
The Good Samaritan had such a choice and it is because he made such a choice that we are moved by the story. He went beyond the call of perceived duty.
I read the Good Samaritan story differently. He did not go beyond the call of duty, he fulfilled it. Christ had no kind words for the others who just walked on by.
Seen another way it is the raped woman lying beaten on the side of the road.
Good point, so allow me to clarify. I am not advocating viewing only the child’s welfare. We must be concerned about the welfare of both. of their. It is both the mother AND the child lying on the side of the road. Surely there must be a better option than to kill one to help the other?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
I may have taken some liberties with the Good Samaritan story, but surely it can be viewed as advocating good acts that fall throughout the entire spectrum of duty on one end and non-obligatory charity on the other end. It is one thing to rescue a baby crawling along the road and another to take lifelong responsibility for it.
I do not deny that it may be in the best interest of everybody involved to keep the child, however I allow for the possibility that it may not be. Who is to say? That is why I lean on DCT on this one. Surely God can be entrusted with relaying to mortals what the best option is. And whether He has in any specific case or not is not my case to judge, but His.
Changing the subject to infanticide changes the parameters of the situation, and no longer serves as a critique of Oaks’ argument. In that case the mother has already chosen–and as Elder Smith wrote above, has entered into a solemn covenant–to raise the child. Unlike abortion, I can think of no special circumstances that might get a parent off the hook. The only loophole is a personal revelation to kill which one must weigh against previous, normative, general revelations that prohibit killing. This was likely a hard decision for Abraham, when told to sacrifice Isaac. For parents under the Law of Moses told to stone their children for disobedience. For God, who actively sent a flood to ensure innocent children would no longer enter a corrupt world with little chance of being raised in a moral environment.
Especially considering the latter case, it is tough for me to fathom that in *every* case, not killing someone is *always* the best solution. If there were better solutions, I doubt God would have sent a flood or His Son, for that matter.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Dave,
Is it possible for a woman to misconstrue the inspiration she recieved from God on this matter?
June 20th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Steve,
I would say yes. That is why one individual’s personal revelation is not binding on the rest of us.
The controls for personal revelation in Mormonism are 1) consult with other concerned parties and see if they get the same inspiration (for the abortion these parties might include the Bishop, the Stake President, the spouse, or the parents)–to paraphrase 2 Cor. 13:1 “In the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” , 2) put more energy level into righteous works that make one more receptive to inspiration (engage in charitable acts, read the scriptures, increase prayer time, etc.)– John 7:17 ~ “He who does the will of the Father will know whether the doctrine is of me or the Father” , 3) study the question out rationally (Mor. 10:4, D&C 9:2-3, D&C 6:23-24), tentatively rely on your own best judgment to make a decision, and make sure your heart and mind are on the same page. For the abortion decision, this puts responsibility on the decision maker of gathering medical advice, psychological advice, pondering the not-in-the-slightest-bit-encouraging words (generally speaking) of church leaders, and exhaustively looking at all options before seriously thinking about an abortion.
The rest of my analysis will look at things through the perpective of bayesnian conditioning that assume outcomes can be properly labeled wrong or right and inspiration can be labeled true or false.
If someone passes through all the checks above with flying colors and receives false personal inspiration to abort when it is fact wrong, then the earthly consequences may be severe; However, I think God would have a hard time holding that individual eternally responsible–at least not as much as He would for someone who aborted without seeking His will first.
If it is always wrong to allow a woman a choice that may lead to abortion (even in exceptional circumstances); than perhaps God should hold the Mormon church partially accountable and lessen the individual’s accountability. In fairness to the church, though, the church gives every opportunity for God to intervene through (further)revelation, whether public or private. In this scenario, He had a church, that delights in receiving and enacting out new revelations. The Mormon church has in its history been willing to radically correct previous understanding of revelation or man-made policies falsely perceived by the membership to have divine sanction instead of mere tolerance in the past. Sometimes the ability to change and not lose members requires careful timing and proper internal and external developments and pressures before a revelation can effectively overcome precedent smoothly. However, at least theoretically God has the ability to set the wheels in motion.
One has to be a little disturbed that He would allow an individual to self-deceive themselves that they have actually received inspiration, when so many passages in scripture make promises (paraphrasing here): “If any of ye lack wisdom” . . . “What man gives a stone when asked for bread” . . . “The [Holy Ghost] will teach you all things” God’s failure to act in a perceptible manner, of course, need not be taken as a sign of culpability on His part. He could be intentionally witholding information and inspiration to make this life more of a test as we try to walk by faith and not sure knowledge. In terms of eternal accountability, though, unless the failure to properly discern inspiration was the result of some huge character flaw, like a mask for pure selfishness and murderous intent, I imagine mercy will rule the day come judgment and that the atonement provides sufficent healing power for man’s inability to be perfectly discerning.
Speaking in terms of accountability, a person could later receive personal inspiration that they had been wrong and need to repent. Repenting at being bad at discerning revelation requires more dilligent heed on a daily basis to the checks outlined above (excised of the specifics regarding abortion). If character flaws got in the way, they can be addressed as well through a carefully outlined and executed repentance/improvement plan. Sadly, the victim of the wrong can not have it personally and immediately made up to them in this mortal life by the sinner, which is an important restitution step in repentance. However, I imagine there are some vicarious (and other) ways around this in obtaining forgiveness.
Moving on to other outcomes, if one presumes that abortion is always wrong, but personal revelation is abundantly meted out and inspires individuals of this, than it stands to reason that the Mormon policy is optimal for acheiving the right outcome. By doing the things required to obtain or test revelation (like prayer, exercising charity, or consulting medical and ecclesiastical experts) the woman puts herself in position to arrive at the presumed right decision and to receive the divine comfort and assurances she needs to go through with it. While it can be argued that divine aid can be obtained just as well from having the right decision just handed to her by a church policy along with a recognition that it is her job to come to terms with it, the Mormon experience would appear to be more personalized and more urgent in the sense that more is being expected in terms of divine intervention. The contrast is that a Mormon is placing their faith in the epistemological endeavor, which if successful will give a big leg up on the perseverance endeavor; whereas a Catholic relies on theology (and nothing wrong with this, as there are many rules in Mormonism that are presented the same way to the Mormon who have already been converted to that particular rule, for example the requirement to pay tithing.) to handle the epistemology and are encouraged to exercise faith mostly on the perserverance endeavor.
Of course, if one has little confidence that personal revelation is abundant and presumes the abortion decision is always wrong than I suppose there is cause for concern about wasting time making a decision when certain influences (like self-delusional “inspiration”) might lead to an individual rationalizing or become comfortable with a wrong decision. Alternatively one might feel foolish asking for inspirational guidance to do something wrong. As Martin Harris would say, “ask and ye shall receive” is not always good when what one gets is to pay the consequences for a wrong action.
I have already speculated at length why abortion might not always be the wrong decision. So I am probably the only one here, unless I can get some of my fellow Mormons to comment, that might be concerned if a Mormon were to have (bayesian) false, self-delusionary inspiration not to abort. The rest of my comment assumes false inspiration to not abort has been received:
I would consider it a unnecesary negative outcome for the mother’s life to be taken if the infant can’t be saved regardless. I would consider it morally unneccesary (and psychologically detrimental for a couple concentrating on welcoming as many of God’s children into their family as they are willing to provide for) to carry a child to term who has a deadly birth defect that will definitely kill it.
Other scenarios are more in gray areas like if there were ever a pure scenario where it was either the mother or the child. This appears to be the case, especially in hindsight (although it sounds like it was anticipated and planned for with a high measure of certainty) with due respect to St. Gianna Molla (who I consider an outstanding exception to the following). In a strictly mother vs. child scenario I would choose the mother almost every time. The mother has more people that depend on her vitality like other children that require her positive influence, children whose salvation is at probable risk if they are raised by someone not of the same faith or can’t/won’t be loved and hence nurtured as much through a replacement mother figure. The fate of the child has unknown consequences, but surely God has merciful provisions for miscarried or stillborn or even infants that die young and innocent (I assume that Catholicism can at least make some of same, at least in broad contours, speculative leaps that Mormonism allows for in terms of merciful possibilities. With that said, Mormonism appears to give children under the age of accountability a free pass to heavenly glory, whereas a Catholic might have greater uncertainty.) If He has a merciful plan for that large group of victims of nature, perhaps it isn’t too much of a leap to allow the same type of accommodations for innocent abortion victims.
There are other gray areas where it becomes increasingly hard to worry about someone misperceiving false inspiration to not abort. For example, what if we are talking in terms of percentages of risk to the mother’s life or the infants life instead of inevitabilities as I do above. The problem of percentages seems like where revelation can come in handy. For example, some cases look highly probable unless a miracle were to happen. So if someone falsely gets the impression God is going to prevent a negative outcome, and then something tragic happens, if not deadly it could be spiritually devastating to an individual.
And then there are some circumstances where false inspiration not to abort might be a good thing. For whatever non-coerced reason a rape victim decides not to abort, I think that has to be looked at as a good thing. I just hope that whatever inspiration such an individual receives is sustaining enough to help them persevere until further divine intervention can fortuitously occur and help alleviate some of the consequences for making the wrong choice.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Dave,
Thanks for the big response. It might be interesting to look at longitudinal data from clinical studies that have addressed the physical and psychological consequences of having an abortion. Even more interesting to break it into subsets based on reasons for having the abortion. I haven’t tried, so I don’t even know if that information is available.
June 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Steve,
I guess I got carried away with my response.
I have looked a little into reasons cited for an abortion by both AGI and Johnston. I summarized Johnston\’s analysis in the entry:
For bad reasons for a divorce AGI reports 75% in the following categories: for refusing to be responsible, for convenience, and to avoid interfering with other activities. 50% because they didn\’t want to be a single or parent or their husband was pressuring them.
These surveys seem to vary by how many options are listed, how many can be chosen, and how they are worded.
I am working on the psych. angle now. So far I have learned pregnancy correlates with depression 10-20% of the time and post partum depression is diagnosed after 11% of births. I still have a long way to go to find more quantitative and qualitative facts on what happen when pregnancy, mental health, physical health, fetal health, and abortion mix.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
In regards to my big comment, I should probably clarify that Mormon church doctrinal sources, the church (via ecclesiastical consultation)doesn’t directly approve of abortions, rather it passively tolerates them in exceptional circumstances that clear the consultation phase. Meaning the church probably won’t instigate discipline as a reaction to such an abortion.
Likewise someone who experiences inspiration interpretted as favorable to going ahead with an abortion, should probably view God as being tolerant of their agency, allowing them to have a clean conscience, and that He won’t instigate eternal discipline. This is different to the notion that He ever directly approves an abortion or prefers that choice over other viable alternatives. Even though I have argued for the latter, this argument goes beyond what doctrinal sources like TTTF state.
Many Mormon may not be comfortable with my speculative defense, preferring instead to use a more standard apologia. For example, when confronted with why they did things in the OT that are morally wrong by today’s standards (polygamy, slavery, divorce), one could say God didn’t directly approve of these practices, he merely permitted them to be done with clear conscience in sub-optimal, lower maintenance environments.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 am
I have found some interesting longitudal studies. One claims that abortion correlates with greater mental health problems. It compares a never pregnant group, to a group that were pregnant and kept their child, to a third group that had an abortion. It can be found at
Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x
A recent paper in the British Medical Journal found no significant increase in depression between a group that had an unwanted child and a group that aborted. If this study holds up then I think it refutes the idea that abortion will cause a rape victim further trauma.
Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
http://tinyurl.com/rgr83
In studying a few anti-abortion sites, I get a feeling they do not approve of the stance of the American Psychological Association on mental health after an abortion. The whole debate seems very politicized and controversial. A Christian ethics journal called for less rhetoric without evidence:
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:27 am
Thanks,
Here’s another. Interesting for its look at the cause of termination.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/3/18
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 am
“To reject abortion as a priori evil strikes me as saying that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a baby because of inconvenience in the life of the mother. I hope you understand why that is hard for me to accept.”
Bear,
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I’m Mormon, have written a lot about abortion, and have addressed this idea many times before.
The primary issue here is whether abortion is an affirmative (“to kill”) or negative act (“let die”.) The hypothetical I rely on is to consider the circumstances it would be morally permissible, or should be legal, for a person stranded in the freezing Alaskan wilderness to refuse carrying a baby to safety. Unless she is responsible for the baby’s being in the wilderness in the first place, it’s apparent that her not carrying the baby 212 miles to safety doesn’t affirmatively kill the baby. God’s harsh Alaskan temperatures, and those who put the baby in danger, are the proximate causes of the baby’s death.
Though the purpose of most abortions is to kill the baby (if an abortionist said, “Congratulations, you’re no longer pregnant, just as you asked. Here’s your healthy baby boy!,” the woman would think the abortionist hadn’t done what she’d paid him to do). However, some women can’t or don’t want to be pregnant, and don’t will the baby’s death any more than someone who refuses to carry an infant from the Alaskan wilderness. Therefore the question usually isn’t whether it’s justifiable “to kill” the baby, but under what circumstances is it morally permissible not to carry a baby to safety.
The Mormon position regarding the rape exception is that sometimes, when the mother didn’t consent to the imposition of parental duties (which require parents to care for their children), and when the burden would threaten her (physical, emotional or mental) health, that God does not always require her to perform that superogatory act.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:05 am
Matt,
I see the distinction you are making. But consider what the procedure of an abortion is in the first place?
If we are talking about something like a caesarian section, you may have an argument.
But how can D&C or a medicinally-induced abortion not be a positive act of killing the child?
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Bear, I fixed up the formatting. Sometimes I think the people who wrote the editor WordPress uses were on the wacky tobacky. At least, that’s how the editor acts sometimes. It had “em” tags all over the place, almost at random.
Some day I’m gonna mess with someone by putting a bunch of weird tags like “h1″ and “blockquote” and stuff in my comment and not closing them, muahahaha.
Matt, does your idea grant that the baby is a person, then? Having a definite position on that would make the rest of the discussion much easier.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I wonder if Mormon doctrines of the purpose of mortality have any play here.
The idea is that sex is primarily meant to allow married couples to “provide physical bodies” for some finite number of spirits waiting in heaven for their shot at mortality.
The question is whether these waiting spirit children get another shot at mortality if “their fetus” is terminated.
The question of when the spirit unites with the flesh is probably important here. If the spirit irrevocably and fully unites with the fetus upon conception, then you are definitely depriving a distinct spirit person from a life in that particular body.
Or perhaps there is no union until birth (this does not seem to be the view of most LDS commentary). If this is the case, the fetus is something less than a full human and the spirit individual is just waiting in heaven for the next available birth body to hop aboard.
Or maybe the connection of spirit body and physical body is tenuous until actual birth. The Book of Mormon has the voice of Christ speaking to Nephi in a vision saying “tomorrow come I into the world.” Then “tomorrow,” Christ was indeed born. Who was talking? Was it Christ himself speaking as a spirit from heaven to Nephi while not actually inhabiting Mary’s womb in spirit? Was the fetus in Mary’s womb speaking with Nephi? Or was Christ’s spirit commuting back and forth between fetus and heaven, right up until birth? Or was it simply God the father speaking for Christ, or some other authorized messenger?
If the connection between spirit and flesh is either non-existent or tenuous, or intermittent before birth, then Elder Oakes analysis based on personal accountability, and not legal murder, makes sense. Because it’s not exactly murder, just something similar to it. But it is still possibly irresponsible, regardless.
But whichever the conclusion about spirit and body, I think many Mormons have an attitude of “better luck next time” when it comes to regarding the fate of an aborted birth. The idea being that the spirit being in question will have another shot at mortality when the fetus is carried to term by some other woman. You wait in line, and you get your turn.
Of course the idea of a finite number of spirits waiting to be born on earth creates additional moral dilemmas when combined with world birth patterns. Many people suffering in the third world would give almost anything for a chance to live in the US or Europe. If the mothers in the US and Europe are aborting a lot of fetuses, while mothers in Africa are carrying a LOT of fetuses to term, this means that lots of spirit children are stuck living mortality in the 3rd world instead of the nicer surroundings of the USA. It frames our society’s practice of legal abortion as yet another way in which the privileged citizens of the world exclude people from their “private club.”
Anyway, I think you can attack abortion from a variety of angles without actually calling it “murder.” It’s hard to tell how much Mormons have internalized the general Catholic reasoning against abortion. Perhaps we object to it on completely different grounds. But probably a little of both.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Seth,
That was a very good comment and I have been pondering a long the lines in my own personal belief formation. I do tend to think even if a revelation was received that was to affirm that a spirit entered a body at conception and it was permanently attached to that body of cells, it would make no difference as to the Mormon church’s official policy. Such a revelation, though, might be valuable for an individual decision maker, giving them an additional reason not to go through with an abortion.
However, we already have Elder Nelson saying that when the spirit enters the body is irrelevant. I think Oaks’ argument stands even if abortion is a form of killing with the same temporal consequences as any other killing (outside the womb). I think some close parallels can be found (they may have to add on some conjectural elements to mirror the same situations) to Mormon exceptions outside the womb and I would think the counsel to seek for spiritual guidance would be equally applicable to resolve tough moral dilemmas.
But back to speculation, in addition to your own possibilities I see several more. I suppose there is some degree of family pre-assignment in the pre-existance, but I wouldn’t carry this to the extent that everything is pre-determined without any flexibility. It may be that a spirit body’s traits are going to be best matched by a certain genetic traits. It maybe that the optimal solution for an aborted child is to be reassigned another body to wait until the next body is available from the same set of parents is available. To me, a couple that welcomes additional spirits into the world or perhaps provides an opportunity for a previously wronged spirit to do so, is taking a very real repentance step. It would be a beautiful thing for a spirit to forgive his parents and be willing to help them have another chance.
But suppose a spirit is permanently attached to a body. LDS thought allows that an infant that dies prematurely might be raised to maturity in the millennial conditions on Earth. If this is also the case for pre-born infants, than it may also be possible that a “repentance” can be affected by the parents by participating under such conditions.
I suppose the key to making either of the scenarios work is how much the infant is willing to forgive his/her natural parents and how willing he/she is to retain the same eternal family in which eternal consequences will be intricately linked. Given that there may be choices involved from the other side, it may be unhelpful to deliver a revelation that will effect mortal behaviour either way, than our understanding already does.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Another way of looking at the Mormon exceptions, one I’ve argued for elsewhere, is that they are not so much about when abortion is objectively right or wrong but about when we can subjectively blame the person for getting the abortion. For those with a legal background, I’m thinking of the difference between ‘justifications’ for committing a crime (self-defense, e.g.) and excuses (duress, insanity). If one has a justification, the crime isn’t a crime. If one has an excuse, the crime is still a crime but the person committing it isn’t held culpable. So while I’d agree with everything that has been said here about it being objectively worse for the child to die than for the victim of rape to endure the pregnancy, I don’t think that’s the last word.
It’s important to remember that the LDS view on abortion we’re discussing here is not a view on when abortion should be legal or not. Its a view on when abortion should be grounds for ecclesiastical sanction.*
*Outside of the exceptions, abortion can be grounds for excommunication and other ecclesiastical penalties. Abortion is one of the few things, along with murder and, I think, adultery that requires higher ecclesiastical approval before the guilty party can be baptized.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I found another statistics site on Mormon abortions.
http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/index.php?q=node/13
“Q: Are there statistics on therapeutic abortion within the Mormon population?”
The website referred to a Tim Heaton article in Dialogue 32:4 p. 34
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=8057
However those numbers look a little suspect given the 13.5 percent number should be more like 25 % . I hear estimates that under-reporting bias gives around 60% who have committed an abortion will actually admit to it in a survey.
November 15th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Santos Charbonneau…
[...]Mormons and Catholics » Blog Archive » More Thoughts on Abortion[...]…
November 18th, 2011 at 4:29 am
wine goblets glass…
[...]Mormons and Catholics » Blog Archive » More Thoughts on Abortion[...]…