I understand this has the potential to be a sensitive and heated emotional topic, so know that I'm not intending any disrespect.

Today I was reading one of Packer's talks and in it he repeated the standard idea that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, when the baby will die, or when it puts the mother's life at risk. I've heard this idea offered up tons of times and I've even said in the past that it's what I believe too. But today I started thinking about whether this idea is actually much less 'pro-life' than it sounds. In the case of rape, it's okay then because it's exchanging the child's life for a higher quality mother's life, yes? (Which I can absolutely understand and agree with.) If that's the case, does that mean that using the same "logic," shouldn't abortion also be okay in a number of other cases where it preserves quality of life/health for the mother and child?

You are going to make people uncomfortable with an inconsistency in their values.

Personally, I think if you're truly going to be pro-life, you can't be in favor of abortion in any case, including rape, incest, or the mother's life at risk. I don't think it's logical to practice selective ethics. If abortion is wrong when a woman chooses to have one because birth control failed, it's still wrong in the case of a rape. After all, if you're going to assign personhood to a fetus, then a fetus conceived in rape is just as innocent as one conceived by accident and the fetus has an equal right to life, right?.

But it's because I am against selective ethics that I am very much pro-choice. I don't believe in forcing a woman to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be pregnant, especially given the state of our healthcare in this country. I personally think that abortion is sickening and I doubt I would ever choose to have one myself. However, I have also lived long enough that I've learned that it's often a mistake to say "never". I believe abortions should be safe and legal to women who wish to have one.

The best stance is to let it be up to the pregnant person. She's the one who has to deal with the consequences of the decision.

People who don't even know her have no business getting in her business.

I do have a bit of a problem that still hasn't clarified in my head when it is consensual sex. To me there is some sort of agreement that the responsibility for the consensual sex act is shared. This seems to be supported by case law that makes a paternal father liable for child support.

So, where I have trouble is the idea that the father can be liable for child support accountable for his actions but can not have a say as to if the child should live or not. The mother may not be willing to raise the child, but the father may very well be.

So, in regards to consensual sex, should the father have a say in regards to the child being brought to term?

That isn't unreasonable, however in practice I wouldn't want the father to be able to overrule the physical needs of either the mother or child. In the arena of mental health,the mental health of the mother and child should be considered over the father's. In my opinion only when the needs of both the mother and child have been considered would the needs of the father be brought into play

By engaging in consensual sex, IMHO, the mother consented to having that man involved in the ramifications of that act. To come back and say: "Oh no, having that man involved would drive me crazy".

The mother is as likely to be bad for the child's mental health as the father.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 04:40PM by MJ.

Of course it should, I'm just a little wary of giving the father an equal voice. Since I have never been in that situation I'm not sure how I would feel if my voice was hushed, but from an academic standpoint I think it should be secondary.

Pregancy involves risk to life and health, and always involves permanent scarring. It also impacts or destroys one's career. Nobody has the right to force another person to serve as an incubator. That is called "slavery".

Now go to all the mothers that RECEIVE that child support and see what THEY think!

Thanks for voting to let men off the hook for lots and lots of responsibility.

So are you saying that the LEGAL father of a child should have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for the child or not?

If they both consented to the sex act that created the child, they both had equal choice and thus should have equal say and as much as possible, equal responsibility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 05:12PM by MJ.

Only women have the power over whether or not to continue a pregnancy, or use emergency contraception to prevent implantation, or have an abortion, or even to know if a pregnancy exists.
This is reality. Too bad.

even though he had no choice in the matter at all.

+1

I have a nephew who was raised by his father. Not because my sister didn't want her son, but because my parents didn't wan't to raise their grandchild. My father in particular made it a requirement of my sister staying at home. My nephew's father and paternal grandparents did a fine job and he has grown into a fine person, but for years as a young child and teenager he harbored deep resentment for his mother. Only as he became an adult did he learn the truth of the situation.

My parents in their Mormon wisdom didn't understand the damage that it might do to both their daughter and grandchild to make the decision for them. My sister who was deeply wounded by this ended up pregnant again, mostly because her emotional health was damaged so badly by my parents thoughtless attitude. My sister did not deserve to be treated this way. So I guess my hesitant attitude has some source, and I don't want to extrapolate the way a teenage girl was treated to apply to all women, but that I think offers some explanation.

Sorry, by agreeing to have sex with the guy, she is agreeing to have the guy involved with the consequences.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 04:54PM by MJ.

If you want the "child", have it implanted and incubate it yourself.

And men everywhere would be glad that they are not on the hook for child support.

I am sure lots of mothers that receive child support will disagree with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 04:57PM by MJ.

does not make one a "father". And the man would never even know of the fertilized egg's existence, so it would not harm him in the least.
None of his business anyway.

Many women are collecting child support because one cell made the man the father LEGALLY. That is NOT ME making the decision. They are collecting it because the WOMEN made it an issue, not me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 05:00PM by MJ.

Men should not be forced to support children that they did not choose to have, and perhaps were even tricked into having.
Also, the woman's legal husband is automatically the legal father of the child, even it it's not his. I think that's a bad law, too.

As I said, get the women collecting child support on board.

Don't you?

The idea is that she had no control over being pregnant, therefore has no moral responsibility towards the fetus.

I am very pro-choice, but I understand the argument as being consistent.

What, exactly, is the Mormon doctrine, in an instance
in which either the mother or the unborn child will die?

That rare case, in which one can be saved and go on to
live for some lengthy, indefinite period; but not both?

If the LDS "Living Prophet" is in the delivery room, and
is begged to give a verdict ---- then who lives? The infant?

UD

I've convinced my uber-TBM mom that the church is "pro-choice." She now describes abortion opinions as a spectrum from those that think anytime for any reason to never, ever no matter what. Anything other than the latter is "pro-choice," there is just differing views of what set of facts is necessary to consider abortion as a possible choice.

I got pregnant (later miscarried) after a pregnancy that almost killed me, and after which I was "prohibited" by drs from getting pregnant again. It was itself a miracle because I'd had to use every form of fertility treatment to get pregnant the other time. While nervous, I was actually thrilled. My parents, and particularly my dad, former MP, however freaked out and immediately went to abortion and insisted that I terminate the pregnancy, which of course I refused because of my obsession with having another baby. It was SO surreal to be having this conversation with them and essentially arguing with them that I did NOT want to get an abortion.

My nevermo coworker and very-TBM coworker had this conversation a few years ago.

After letting him explain the church's stance on abortion, she calmly said 'you realize that technically means the church is pro-choice then, right?'

He sputtered for a while and then suddenly had somewhere to be.

Most of the people I've talked to about it feel that same way, but seem to think that 'pro-choice' means that person wants to abort all babies, not that they just don't think the government should be able to tell a woman she can't choose for herself.

And on that technicality, what is considered incest? If first cousins who are legally married (because they can still do that in places) conceive, is abortion totally fine in their case according to church standards?

Incest can be between consenting adults.

I think that it is a complex personal decision and it is "immoral" to place arbitrary restrictions on the decision. I also think that making that decision without taking into consideration the physical and mental health of the two parties involved is also not right. I am convinced that there are some women who decide to abort without considering their child, I would rather that was not the case. However since I am not likely to ever find myself in that situation I am in no position to judge.

He might as well have come out and say:

"there's nothing fundamentally wrong with abortion, especially if it's not your fault you got pregnant, or if we don't think the baby will be genetically pure enough. The important thing is that if neither of the above hold true, you must pay the price for having sex. We hate people who do that and think they can get away with it."

+1, thank you. Those are the words I was looking for!

"...oh, and if the baby pays the price too, just remember that's your fault, not ours."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 03:44PM by kimball.

I had an abortion a few months after I turned 20. While it wasn't forcible rape, it was an abusive situation in which I allowed someone I'd been dating to vent their rage and domination on me which resulted in an uncharacteristic 'skipping' of the normal birth control we'd been using.

After that night, I was worried about pregnancy so I remained observant. As soon as I realized I was and had it confirmed, I underwent the procedure at 8 weeks. For reasons that shouldn't have to be spelled out, it was a very traumatic experience mentally and emotionally.

I didn't want to have the abortion, but I also knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that I wasn't ready to be a single mother emotionally or financially, and am not ashamed to say that I did not want the fertilizer to have an opportunity to harm someone else besides me. I also knew there was a significant risk that I was not going to be mentally strong enough to give up a baby for adoption if I brought the pregnancy to term: I have always been impulsive and super-sensitive. It's taken decades of practice (and maturity) to bring those traits down to a dull roar. There's no way I would've gone through the experience of birth and not said "This is mine, not yours." I'm not ashamed to admit this about myself, and nor am I prepared to say I wouldn't have been a good mother in the end. It is, simply, what it is.

Thanks to understanding and supportive friends and family, I have mostly come to terms with some mixed and complicated feelings about it. It's telling (to me) that being married for over 20 years to a guy I adore, and our mutually not making children a priority in our marriage, means that I probably made the right choice -- even as I allow myself to feel moments of grief at not only what never was, but what never will be.

At 43, I know I'm going through a transitional life stage. While others watch their children leave the nest, I've watched myself leave a fertile age range, with the continued recognition that I still feel no urgency to heed a biological clock, all the while wrestling with cultural imperatives that insist I am strange, incomplete, should have regrets, etc.

Life rarely has easy answers, and this is just another fragile yet comfortable truce balanced between wondering and acceptance. Regardless of the difficulties or unexpected twists and turns my life has had, I remain grateful for all the good fortune I have had, and how much I've been able to love and be loved.

Would I do the same today? Well, my situation is very different. For one, I have an eminently supportive partner of long duration who would give late-stage, unplanned parenting everything he had by my side (though he'd initially be as freaked out as I..."OMG, our kid will be 20 when we're 65!")

Note to self: it's his turn in 2015 when my IUD comes out. Snip snip! Good thing he's ready and willing ;-)

The only time the topic of abortion becomes morally difficult for me is when it's used repeatedly by the same person as a substitute for birth control (without mental or educational defect), or when the decision to abort is delayed for a long enough period that partial birth abortion is necessary. Aside from the latter's medically necessary application - which should remain between a woman and her partner (if there is one) and her doctor - and the complicated decisions arising from sudden changed circumstances or lack of support and being unable to come to an early decision - these last two circumstances would trouble me not because of the potential 'life' being prevented from starting long before it ever gets started, but because such actions would seem to be evidence of a trivial callousness toward ethical concerns that would cause me to question whether a deeper, more troublesome pattern of callousness existed.

If you can kill a baby because the mother was raped, then is that just justifying murder? If it's not murder, then a fetus is not yet a baby, so abortion is okay.

I think it is impossible to know when a fetus becomes a person. Most pregnancies self-terminate in the first few weeks and many miscarriage after that. Since even the Mormon prophet will not speculate on when life begins, who am I to tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy?

I study abortion -- or more precisely the pro-life movement as an extension of the Prohibitionists. Like "the liquor question" before it, "the abortion question" is the land of cant and hypocrisy -- and rather fabulous ignorance and endless urban legends.

I thought I'd share a story that as I remember comes from In the Garden of Good and Evil (which is a true story set in the South). The writer met someone, a transgendered woman, or perhaps he was just a cross-dressing man who was bilking a fundamentalist Christian congregation by telling them she had been knocked up by an African American. This "pro-life" body immediately raised the money for her to get an abortion, no questions asked. THAT is a crisis! She pulled the trick a couple of times before she decided maybe the pitcher had been to the well enough times, and they might eventually tumble to her.

Recently a tape surfaced of a Republican pro-life congressman telling his mistress to get an abortion -- YA' THINK!

Sorry to be cynical, but the more I have learned, the more I only want to hear from men and women who have really been there. It is very easy to have an opinion about the callousness of others, but if anyone on this board went in for a late term checkup and learned that the "baby" she was carrying had developed without a brain, she would do a 180 faster than a dinged NASCAR driver.

Which reminds me, did you know we got NASCAR from Prohibition? True story. Drag racing came from the bootleggers trying to outrun the Feds. It is fascinating stuff.

Some great observations here.

Garden of Good and Evil is *still* on my to-read list. You've just reminded me to grab a copy, thanks

rainwriter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand this has the potential to be a
> sensitive and heated emotional topic, so know that
> I'm not intending any disrespect.
>
> Today I was reading one of Packer's talks and in
> it he repeated the standard idea that abortion is
> wrong except in cases of rape, incest, when the
> baby will die, or when it puts the mother's life
> at risk. I've heard this idea offered up tons of
> times and I've even said in the past that it's
> what I believe too. But today I started thinking
> about whether this idea is actually much less
> 'pro-life' than it sounds. In the case of rape,
> it's okay then because it's exchanging the child's
> life for a higher quality mother's life, yes?
> (Which I can absolutely understand and agree
> with.) If that's the case, does that mean that
> using the same "logic," shouldn't abortion also be
> okay in a number of other cases where it preserves
> quality of life/health for the mother and child?


I'm not sure if I'm mis-reading you, or if you just weren't clear.

You listed four separate and distinct instances in which LDSinc says that abortions are okay:

1) rape
2) incest
3) when the baby will die
4) if the mother's life is in jeopardy

"Then you said "In the case of rape, it's okay then because it's exchanging the child's life for a higher quality mother's life, yes?"

I'm not sure what you mean that the abortion is in exchange for the mother's higher quality life.

Then you ask, "...shouldn't abortion also be okay in a number of other cases where it preserves quality of life/health for the mother and child?"

The answer (based on item #4) is yes, *anything* that puts the life of the mother in danger, that can be prevented by aborting the baby, can be cause for an abortion and the mother will not be in deep 5hit with tscc.

I think a better argument is, based on items 2 & 3 above, there is no physical health benefit for anyone involved. Therefore it seems the only rationalization for the procedure is that it is for a mental health benefit ("where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother"). If this is the case, then *every* abortion that could be called a mental health benefit should get the LDS stamp of approval. But it doesn't. And since many non-sanctioned abortions are for mental health, they should get the go-ahead. But they don't.

It's interesting that it is never specified in the case of incest if the abortion is okay because of mental health, or embarrassment/awkwardness.


Official LDS Position:
"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." LDS Gospel Topics, "Abortion" https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

"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." First Presidency, Aprl 1973, http://www.lds.org/new-era/1973/04/policies-and-procedures-statement-on-abortion?lang=eng

The problem is that the Utah State Legislature then tries to pass laws based on these vagaries. They passed one where the woman could get an abortion if she (or the fetus) had a "grave" condition. What in the hell does that mean? If a woman is so depressed she is suicidal, is that a "grave" condition? Fortunately the law was struck down, but if it hadn't been, let's say a pregnant woman had tried to get an abortion. The doctor turned her away because she did not have a "grave" condition. She then killed herself. Could the family sue because the doctor had not recognized the patient had a "grave" condition? After all, there is nothing more "grave" than where she ended up.

Such ideas aren't bad -- until you try to put them into practice. Then you start to realize how crazy it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 05:00PM by janeeliot.

P.S. Side note: the book about moonshine and racing is called "Driving with the Devil."