For decades now, the right of a woman to have an abortion has been a hotly contested issue, and more and more lately politicians have been using it to garner votes. The liberal media has been resorting to shameful slander in an attempt to vilify those who oppose abortion, claiming that they want to keep abortion illegal in order to keep women in subjugation. I do not claim to know all that motivates both sides of this issue, but we are capable of observing the effects that it has on individuals and on society. The issue of abortion raises troubling questions about how we view and value human life. As a member of the Church, and also as a human being, I am diametrically opposed to the doctrine that a life can be ended as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And nowhere is this doctrine more prominent than in the issue of abortion.
The Question:
"What do Mormons believe about abortion? Is it ever justified?"
The Short Answer:
Human life is sacred and should be protected. There are exceptional circumstances that may justify an abortion (rape, the mother's well-being, etc.) but only after consulting with the Lord. Abortion is never justified when solely for personal convenience.
The Long Answer:
As usual, the best place to start is on common ground, and that means understanding. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by removing the embryo or fetus from the womb. Proponents of a woman's right to an abortion for any reason are commonly referred to as "Pro Choice," because they believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body. Many belonging to the Pro Choice camp believe, or at least claim that an abortion is not technically killing if the fetus is not old enough to survive on its own outside the womb. Opponents of abortion are called "Pro Life," because they believe that a developing fetus has the right to live, and that therefore elective abortion (that is, abortion for personal convenience rather than for medical reasons) is tantamount to murder.
The Church's stance on abortion is very 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. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline." There are exceptional circumstances that may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of rape, when the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy, or when the fetus is known to have defects that would make it unable to survive outside the womb, but even these circumstances do not automatically justify abortion. It should only be chosen after consulting with Church leaders and with the Lord (True to the Faith, 4-5). Of all the commandments given by God, few are more well known than Exodus 20:13 which is simply, "Thou shalt not kill." The Lord has reiterated this commandment in latter days and even expanded it to say, "Thou shalt not... kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). While abortion did not exist at the time this modern revelation was given, latter day prophets have made it clear that God does not excuse abortion, because it ends--aborts--the life of a very real individual who could have lived a full and productive life if allowed to survive to childbirth.
What is Life?
The debate over whether abortion is killing centers around how we define life. Does life technically begin once a baby takes its first breath, immediately upon conception, or when the fetus could survive on it's own outside the womb? Latter Day Saints believe that we all existed as spirits before being born into this life and that our spirit enters our body at some point during pregnancy. While the precise moment when the spirit enters is unknown, intentionally terminating a pregnancy, no matter how early, is contrary to the teachings of the Church because it robs one of God's spirit children the chance to gain a body and live through mortality, which is an essential part of God's plan for His children's happiness (a future post will explain this plan known as the Plan of Salvation in more detail).
Obviously, those who are not members of the Church may feel no obligation to follow its teachings. But there is still an important reason why the answer is not nearly so simple as the Pro Choice side would have us believe. The whole argument over what we define to be living (and by extension, what we define to be killing) is flawed. It is impossible to ask the fetus whether he or she is alive, and it is impossible for us to come to an unbiased conclusion on our own because it is in each party's best interest to define life as whatever is most convenient for them. Someone who has gotten pregnant (or gotten somebody else pregnant) and doesn't want to care for the child resulting from the pregnancy has no business attempting to decide whether or not that child is alive (and therefore ineligible for abortion) because that person is not a neutral party.
Consider this analogy: when determining the fate of an individual standing trial, that individual has the right to be tried by an impartial jury (see the Sixth Amendment). Impartial means unbiased, having no involvement or interest, and not favoring one side more than the other. If a member of the jury stands to gain anything should the accused be condemned, then by definition that juror is not impartial. So it is with abortion. The life of millions of unborn children hang in the balance and the very ones deciding whether or not they ought to be allowed to live stand to benefit (in a sense) from allowing them to be killed: to them, abortion means absolving themselves from the responsibility of raising a child they didn't want in the first place. Whether or not they would consciously allow this to sway their decision is irrelevant; the mere possibility means they are unfit for the jury.
What is Choice?
Many in the Pro Choice camp ignore the question of whether or not a fetus is alive (some even going so far as to say that it doesn't matter) and instead vehemently uphold a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. This argument is deceptive because it ignores the fundamental truth that while we have the right to choose our actions, we do not have the right to choose the consequences of our actions. "When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other." When you choose to have sex, you also accept the possibility of getting pregnant, or getting someone else pregnant.
For this and other reasons, I find the name "Pro Choice" to be very misleading. It is difficult for me to swallow the Pro Choice moniker because if its proponents cared so much about choice they would (1) acknowledge that most women did have a choice whether to have sex and whether to use protection, (2) recognize the right of the unborn child to have the choice to live his or her life, (3) address the serious consequences and mental and physical side effects that accompany the choice to have an abortion, and (4) present adoption as a viable alternative choice to abortion.
It's clear to me that whatever the Pro Choice platform may claim in the media and in politics, the issue of abortion is no longer about life or choice; it's about allowing people to ignore the consequences for their actions at the expense of those who are weak, helpless, and unable to speak for themselves. I make no apology when I say that one day the world will realize the magnitude of the atrocity known as abortion, and the sorrow over the millions of unnecessary deaths will be terrible indeed. Furthermore, God's authorized servants have warned us that there are consequences for our actions, and that "individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God" (The Family).
No comments:
Post a Comment