Poll: Abortion Article Timing
Now Stop!
Before you go ‘n click on “comment”, let us set up some ground rules. Take a deep breath.
First, please focus on the topic at hand. Politically motivated or not? And what does that say about us, our church, American politics?
Second, no spewing forth of imbalanced irrelevant knee-jerk abortion-debate-crap. We don’t do that here. Please read one or both of the following posts, and some of the subsequent comments, to get an idea of how we do this discussion around here.
Pro-Balance: The Abortion Debate Redefined.
Be thoughtful, be balanced, leave angry abortion shtick at home.
Lisa, I think we need to add at least one more option to the poll. How about “some of both”? Because we don’t know when the article was submitted or who decided to run it when. I’d vote for a bit of both…
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 12:42 am
While you’re suggesting poll options, Janet Bluebannet, how about a box for the option, “Inspired of God as one final last-ditch effort to make those evil feminist sinners repent and vote Republican, lest they bring eternal damnation onto their everlasting souls by voting Democrat.”
Just for giggles, ya know?
Comment by Kaimi — October 1, 2008 @ 12:55 am
Why not?
And that’s “Janet, dammit, I love you!” dontchaknow
(2 points to whoever places the allusion)
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 1:06 am
Huh . . . Can’t quite place it . . . Maybe if I take a jump to the left, and a step to the ri-i-i-ght . . . Maybe I’ll go ask my next door neighbor, he’s a sweet transvestite from transexual Transylvania.
Comment by Quimby — October 1, 2008 @ 1:12 am
From an earlier post: “No single issue has been as divisive of women as that of abortion.”
I don’t know about the poll article of which you speak but any raising of the issue is and has always been with the intention of controlling women by dividing us. Divide and conquer.
There is no issue. A woman has the right to privacy in making her reproductive choices. Period. There is nothing to discuss publicly. This is a private matter. As is where a man choses to deposit his sperm.
How is it that male reproductive rights is not sic debated ad nauseum? Right. That would be attempting to control them. To politicise reproductive choices is the attempt to control the citizens making the choice. Control by intimidation. Fascism.
Male doctors need to use all manner of communication in this country to drill into mens brains that sperm causes pregnancy. They have 100% control over whether their sperm results in a pregnancy. They are not controlled by hormones. They have an evolved brain which decides. We’ve all had tenth grade biology. This is fact.
We enable men to use their reproductive right recklessly by perpetuating the myth that hormones control them. Their behavior is not controlled by hormones. They have an evolved brain which decides. Women have accepted their power and are excercising it.
Men are allowing themselves to be controlled by intimidation. Men have their own personal power. They need only to excercise it as women have learned to do.
Comment by Ruby — October 1, 2008 @ 6:49 am
Of course you don’t know anything about the article under discussion, Ruby. That should have been your first clue that anything you had to say would be irrelevant and, well, stupid.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — October 1, 2008 @ 6:57 am
I think that it might have been a final attempt to get us to think about abortion before the election, but I’m not going to vote for someone only because of their stand on abortion. I’ll vote for the person that BEST represent my views.
Comment by pickles — October 1, 2008 @ 7:14 am
I must be dense. The timing is politically motivated or coincidental with what? Is there something going on politically with abortion that doesn’t go on 365 days a year? I haven’t noticed abortion being a big issue in the presidential campaigns. I’m not aware of anything going on in congress. Is there a ballot initiative, a court case, or a proposed constitutional amendment somewhere that coincides with the article? Help me out here.
Comment by Left Field — October 1, 2008 @ 7:17 am
Here’s the article.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 7:50 am
There is a current political movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade that is gaining in strength. It is a movement that affects, but is not directly correlated with the presidential election, from what I understand. Whether or not the article is well-timed, or coincidentally-timed, I don’t know, but I don’t suppose it really matters. The Church’s stance is quite clear on this matter, whether or not you agree with it.
I personally, have no problem with the Church advising its members on how to vote on certain issues. It doesn’t say what candidates to vote for. It is still up to us to navigate the mud and decide which issues or qualities of character are most important in our leaders. Additionally, I know of no time that the Church has forced the issue by threatening excommunication or even disfellowship. Free speech is free. Part of that freedom is having to listen to opinions you don’t agree with, whatever their source.
Comment by SilverRain — October 1, 2008 @ 8:00 am
at the end of the day …. ya gotta love Quimby.
now let me make some toast …. and reach for a newspaper as it will be raining later tonight .. hehehehe
can we have a singalong too, Janet?
so glad it’s Wednesday … make it a great one sisters and brothers
Comment by Mary Magdalene — October 1, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Elder Nelson’s article muddies the waters quite a bit. The Church has never taken a position on the thorny issue of precisely when “life” begins. Elder Nelson states that life begins at conception. In contrast, the Church has never stated as a matter of policy that life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, it becomes much more difficult to justify abortion for, say, rape or incest, both of which the Church allows.
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2008 @ 8:16 am
I don’t know if the article was intended to influence some specific political end and neither does anybody who votes in the poll or comments on this post.
Comment by Tom — October 1, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Inspired, that’s what it was.
Comment by Lo — October 1, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Of course it was political! What is written and when it is published in the magazine can only be seen as political! Come on, church headquarters are in the US and this is coming out in the issue right before the election. When all other reasons tell you vote for the left, the right always comes back with the culture wars! Unbelievable!
Comment by sarah — October 1, 2008 @ 9:04 am
I would like to think it was coincidental–the layout person decided it was just the right fit for the space needed to be filled, or something. I could be wrong, but I occasionally like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Left Field–abortion is an issue thought to bring out the conservative vote. That is why it still gets bandied about, even though most Americans seem quite content that the issue is settled. One big conservative talking point this time around is judicial appointments, and those on the right are trying to scare the bejesus out of voters about what/who Obama might appoint, so abortion is handy to get people all riled up.
Comment by ESO — October 1, 2008 @ 9:05 am
As a midwife, I know life is precious. As a woman, and a social worker, I wish that abortion wasn’t about class, gender and color. But it is. Sadly it is.
I remember once, saying to my mom, how I wished that you could take the ability to have children away from some women. (think drug addicts who are birthing their children right into foster care) (never occured to me to even begin to hunt down the men who are impregnating them! Says a lot, don’t you think?) My mom responded that when we (as a society) did that, it always ended up being the women who were poor and brown who came under the knife, and it would happen again.
The politics of abortion are intertwined with our All American prejudice against those who dare to be of color and poor. By refusing to look at the whole picture, we refuse to face ourselves.
Comment by Jo — October 1, 2008 @ 9:12 am
I have serious doubts that it is a coincident. I want to believe that it is, but I just can’t.
Thanks for the links to the previous posts. I liked the idea of being pro-love.
Comment by Violet — October 1, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Re: 10,
There is a current political movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade that is gaining in strength.
This movement has been underway for some time, but I question whether it’s currently gaining strength. We’ve had a socially conservative President in the White House for eight years, seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, and Republicans had control of both houses of Congress for most of Bush’s presidency, yet Roe v. Wade still stands.
Even if Roe were overturned, I think it would be a largely symbolic victory–in most States, it would not have a huge impact on the availability of abortions. I suspect that most States (perhaps with the exception of those with large evangelical Christian populations) would continue to protect the right to abortion, either through legislation or under their respective constitutions.
The Church’s stance is quite clear on this matter, whether or not you agree with it.
The Church’s stance is that elective abortion, under most circumstances, is immoral. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Church has not taken an official stance on the legality of abortion. According to the LDS.org Newsroom, “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.” One may believe that abortion is wrong in most circumstances without necessarily believing that abortion should be made illegal, and the Church seems to leave the door open to that position.
That having been said, I have no doubt that Nelson’s article will only push people toward the pro-life camp when it comes to politics (and I can’t believe that he did not contemplate this outcome). While being pro-choice may not conflict with Church doctrine per se, I don’t think the Church is going to come out and explicitly say so (in so many words).
Comment by Steve M — October 1, 2008 @ 9:27 am
There’s an article about Nelsons recent talk at Zelophehad’s Daughters and it also provides a link to the Ensign Archive, where you can find Nelsons article from May 1985 about the same topic.
There are only a few alterations to his recent talk..
Comment by Tabitha — October 1, 2008 @ 9:29 am
#13 Yeah. I think that’s why it’s called an “opinion poll” and not an “irreducable facts that cannot must not ever be changed in any way poll.” Besides that’s a bit wordy, don’t you think? Or did you, Tom, think we didn’t know that opinions were being profferd and were only doing your good natured best to set us straight?
I aoplogize for being so snarky but it drives me a little batty when people are thoughtfully trying to thrash out how they feel about a sensitive topic and lo and behold…enter the Patriarch to let us all know how we’re doing it wrong.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Very well said Jo. I do think this is political unfortunately. I’m starting to feel a bit micromanaged within the church, they may not tell us who to vote for but they will do everything but.
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Sigh. Supposedly principles of the gospel are found in the platforms of both political parties. I’d love to see an article in the Ensign that endorses some issue that’s more aligned with the Dems instead of the Republicans. Just once. Maybe something like reiterating compassion for immigrants. You know, pretend that there actually is something praiseworthy in the platform of the Democratic party.
I was actually upset about the timing of this. It’s quite likely that the next president will nominate the replacements for a couple of the more liberal judges on the court. As currently constituted it’s a balanced court, which I think it rather appropriate since that reflects pretty well the way the country is split. I hope (really really hope) this article isn’t a subtle encouragement to vote Republican to “save the babies” but I have my doubts about that.
Comment by kristine N — October 1, 2008 @ 10:03 am
crazywomancreek,
It’s ridiculous to make an issue of my gender.
Some things drive me batty, too, like people proffering opinions on things they can’t possibly know anything about. There is no way to answer the question. The only thing the conversation can possibly reveal is the prejudices of the participants.
But don’t let me stop you from having the conversation if you want to. By the authority of my manhood I give you permission to carry on.
Comment by Tom — October 1, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I’m curious why people feel it is politically timed, aside from a general suspicion. Was there something in the article that suggests that which I missed? Can someone point out something in the October 2004, 2000 or 1996 Ensign which establishes a pattern? Or is the certainty of opinion a reflection of political ideology?
Comment by Norbert — October 1, 2008 @ 10:17 am
The articles in the ensign tend to deal with the issues that are in the forefront of the minds of it’s members.
You’ll also find an article about gender identity.
Abortion and Gender Identity are two issues its members are tackling right now, and as we begin to feel out how we should vote this year and as we get into discussions as to when life begins- I appreciate having living prophets to share with us the Lords teachings on these topics.
What good are living prophets if they don’t deal with these difficult issues that face us?
Comment by salt h2o — October 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Maybe I’ll go ask my next door neighbor, he’s a sweet transvestite from transexual Transylvania.
Does it say something about me that RHPS was an integral part of my sexual awakening?
Probably it does?
Comment by Chandelle — October 1, 2008 @ 10:33 am
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.”
Hm. Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable to fight legalized abortion, and to fight allowing loving couples to have equal protection under the law, and to throw all kinds of money at these issues, but the war? Which has killed hundreds of thousands of people? Which is kinda like killing? And doing something like unto it? Nope! Not worth our time or energy! Not worth political action! Not worth encouraging the membership to devote their time and money to the cause! Not worth telling the membership how to vote!
This makes me sick.
Comment by Chandelle — October 1, 2008 @ 10:38 am
#24 I followed your link and on the strength of your working with baker’s yeast I’ll attempt to be thoughtful and not dismissive. So great is my respect for yeast!
This strikes me as a well worn phrase that may need to be retired in favor of it’s alternative. Kimberly has attested that as a result, presumably, of discussions like these she changed her mind about gay marriage. My own long held beliefs about Mormonism have undergone great galloping changes as a result of conversations like these. I don’t think I need to go on providing specific examples but it might be helpful if you, Tom, could think of instances where a long held belief or certainty was transformed by listening to someone else’s opinion that rang true to you; slowly eroding the old idea or boldly striking you as irrefutable proof that had been heretofore unimaginable.
And finally, because I can read subtext as well as the next gal and know you’re just begging for it: by the power invested in me by the great Humanist Matriarch, I grant you the right to thoughtfully respond to these and all future comments. Go forth, young Tom and let your testosterone be a shining beacon of hope to all priesthood holders. This I grant you.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 10:43 am
#28. Well said, you go Chandelle! I always find it amusing that studies seem to show that abortion goes down when sex education and birth control are freely available - that is when the dems have more of a say in things. IMO the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot over abortion by promoting abstinence only sex education, then screaming over the increase in abortions. JMO.
Comment by susan — October 1, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Norbert, the difference is in those previous elections the specter of overturning Roe v. Wade wasn’t there. If we elect John McCain and he appoints judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, it’ll happen. As has been pointed out, that will return us to a situation where access to abortion is under the control of individual states. Access to a legal, safe abortion for women in some states will be restricted to those who are capable of (read, wealthy enough to) travel to another state.
Comment by kristine N — October 1, 2008 @ 11:02 am
I don’t think I need to go on providing specific examples but it might be helpful if you, Tom, could think of instances where a long held belief or certainty was transformed by listening to someone else’s opinion that rang true to you; slowly eroding the old idea or boldly striking you as irrefutable proof that had been heretofore unimaginable.
If you’re talking about conversations about abortion, I’ll agree that they can have impact and change minds. I’m not saying that those kinds of conversations are always pointless. I’ve been known to engage in them myself from time to time. But the question of the post is about Elder Nelson’s and/or an Ensign editor’s state of mind while deciding to publish the article. The only thing any of us can do is guess and which way we guess will depend on our prejudices. There is no evidence that can lead us one way or the other. I don’t think that such a mind reading game has the potential to cause any of the epiphanies you’re talking about. But whatever. If you don’t respect my priesthood, then ignore me. At least you respect the yeast.
Comment by Tom — October 1, 2008 @ 11:29 am
From the article, thanks for the link crazywomancreek
“abortion is not solely an individual matter”
A woman is a solely individual with a right to privacy to chose under our secular law.
The womens vote will decide the secular election in a little over a months time. This article could have been withheld till then. He chose to excericise his right to chose to publish it now.
In my opinion politically motivated? Absolutely.
Of course someone could call him up and ask him. I don’t have a church directory. If I did I would. Would he apologise if he knew it was divisive?
Comment by Ruby — October 1, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Frankly, I want a Prophet speaking out about the events of our day. What would Jeremiah have preached about if not about current events?
Give me a break. This blog has too high an opinion of its relevance.
Comment by sam — October 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am
The Church has never taken a position on the thorny issue of precisely when “life” begins. Elder Nelson states that life begins at conception.
Well, then,…. I guess the Church finally has taken a position.
Comment by sam — October 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am
sam, I want a prophet who speaks about the events of our day, too. I’d just appreciate it if that “speaking out” didn’t appear to support one political party exclusively.
Comment by kristine N — October 1, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Mary Magdalene–yes! Singalongs for everybody! The world needs more singalongs (says the girl who lived on a commune). But nobody can call me the other appellations from that film directed at the “Janet” character :).
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 11:51 am
The Church has never taken a position on the thorny issue of precisely when “life” begins. Elder Nelson states that life begins at conception.
Well, then,…. I guess the Church finally has taken a position.
No. An apostle who may have the keys latent — but not active — has taken a position. It is not the official position of the Church.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Chiming in with Steve M– there’s a wide divide between morality and legality. Consider the gigantic complications which would ensue from the attempt to allow legal abortions in only the cases where the church extends moral latitude. It would be a mess. I am in complete agreement that abortion is a moral evil . . . but that doesn’t make it easy to legislate.
Comment by Janet — October 1, 2008 @ 11:53 am
In my 38, I am not diminishing the apostolic role, or Elder Nelson’s right to express his opinion, or anything else like that. I’m just trying to stave off the jump that some people make by elevating anything any apostle says to prophetic status.
Now for a real subversive thought: If Moroni were to go back and edit an anthology of Ensign, New Era, and Friend articles, would everything written by every apostle make the cut?
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
@12: Technically, I believe Elder Nelson said that he was taught in medical school that “life”, in the biological (but not necessarily philosophical/spiritual) sense of the word, begins at conception.
@28: Chandelle, for what it’s worth, it was Elder Nelson who set the church all atwitter with his “renounce war and proclaim peace” Conference talk back in 2003.
Comment by JimD — October 1, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
and that apostle was speaking only of when biological life begins. He didn’t address when the life of the “soul” begins - when the spirit enters the body at all. He also didn’t address abortion legislation at all.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
The article certainly could be subtly reminding members of an issue that may be impacted by this election, thus encouraging members to vote for the candidate most likely to oppose abortion. McCain is consistently and publically pro-life. Then again, it could also be geared to cementing an alliance with more mainstream Christian groups just before the election too. Especially since the article specifically designated the begining of life as conception, a popular Evangelical view. Maybe the church had not specifically said so before, but this must be generally agreed upon now, since it couldn’t have been approved for publication without the knowledge of the authorities.
Comment by Kimberly — October 1, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Hadn’t read #41 when I wrote #42. Sorry for the redundancy, but it’s an important point, imo.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
OK, let’s at least deal with reality here. Sorry for the following bluntness, but . . .
The Church has always said that biological life begins at conception. The point is that it has never taken a stance on when the spirit enters the body, thus making the fetus “a living soul”. This talk doesn’t do that either. It doesn’t even hint at that. All it does is reinforce the existing position of the Church - that abortion is a serious action that ends biological life and should not be taken lightly and that is NOT murder (as some other denominations teach). This does absolutely nothing to change or alter the Church’s traditional position on abortion in any way. None whatsoever.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
I hadn’t thought of it before, but might the article be a subtle dig at Obama’s past opposition to “born alive” legislation?
Comment by JimD — October 1, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
It’s just a rerun. No news here.
Comment by Ann — October 1, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
We read this article for FHE… I have to be hones,t I was disheartened and confused by it.
I am pro-life except in the cases of rape and incest, and when the mother’s life is at stake. However i am VERY sympathetic to the opposing view of the government “not telling me what I can’t do with my body”..
I was confused about 2 statements:
“Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice”
“Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and his commandments”
But then Nelson says that it’s ok to have abortions under x circumstances. He implies the legalization of abortion is awful but then says there’s a place for it- in cases of rape and incest.
I think it would have been less confusing if he would have condemneed the PRACTICE, not the LAW. And THAT is why I think this is politically motivated… If you imply the legalization of abortion is wrong and terrible, but then say there are cases where abortion is alright, then you can’t say that the legalization is wrong and terrible. What would a rape victim do if abortion were illegal? So I think Nelson needs to be more clear on the subject.
Comment by jessie — October 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
and ONE MORE THING- I would have really liked to see other moral issues in the ensign, like the fact that 40 million americans are without healthcare-
but who are we to care about our sick and afflicted? only christians… besides, the book of mormon has TONS of information about how homosexuals and abortions will bring down our society.
jk, it totally doesn’t, but it does say plenty about societies that don’t take care of their sick and afflicted.
Comment by jessie — October 1, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Ok I missed something … what is the “born alive” legislation? And why did Obama oppose it? I haven’t heard of this one…
Comment by bookwormmama — October 1, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Re: the idea of when life begins
a distressing thing we learned when undergoing fertility treatments: most fertilized embryos don’t emplant/survive. (What’s the number? 80%?) If life really does begin at the moment of conception, 80% of us are dead before we even get going. I don’t know about you, but I kind of hope it doesn’t.
Comment by Kerry — October 1, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
“Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and his commandments”
This quote troubles me. Our Constitution (which LDS scripture holds to be inspired of God) forbids the establishment of a state religion. Should we expect our political leaders to take into account “God and his commandments”–or, more specifically, the LDS definition of “God and his commandments”–when legislating for a pluralistic society?
I’m sure you can find support for that proposition in the Book of Mormon, but frankly, I don’t think it’s fair to expect our secular government to tailor its policies to our particular, subjective views of morality. Especially when our own scriptures state, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied” (emphasis added).
When it comes to debating secular policy (even when it has moral overtones), I think we need to be putting our arguments into terms that are compelling even outside of the LDS worldview.
Comment by Steve M — October 1, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
well said Steve M
Comment by jessie — October 1, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
#50 The Born Alive legislation refers to the establishment of personhood in the case of an infant born alive- surviving a botched abortion procedure…medical care must be provided or it would be termed a murder. Obama voted against a similar measure in his state senate but said that he would have voted for it on the Federal level, as long as the legislation didn’t undermine Roe v. Wade.
Comment by Kimberly — October 1, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Re: 48
Jessie - I think Elder Nelson touched on that idea of combatting the practice and not just the lawwhen he said we should focus not just on “choice,” but on making the “right choice.”
As far as being politically motivated, I don’t doubt it. The Church has repeatedly asserted its right to speak out on social/moral issues, even while staying neutral on political parties and candidates.
Comment by Patti — October 1, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Ray - I’m not sure if your “let’s deal with reality” comment was directed at me, but the “reality” is public statements made by the Church about abortion do not state that life begins at conception.
Check out lds.org:
There’s nothing about “life begins at conception” here or in the “Additional Information” section after this statement. If life begins at conception - meaning if those two cells Elder Nelson talks about are a human being - we can’t justify killing a human being merely because he had the unfortunate accident of being conceived without his mother’s consent to sexual intercourse.
Although I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s position, at least it’s consistent with valuing human life. If those two cells constitute a human being, then killing that human because of the circumstances of his conception (i.e., rape) is difficult to justify.
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Thanks, Ray for explaining the Church’s stance. What you said was what I referred to when I said that the Church’s stance is clear. I believe the confusion only comes when we try to justify our own opinions in light of what the Church teaches.
Whether or not greater abortion controls should be legislated is not part of the Church’s stance, which is part of why I don’t think it matters whether or not this article was deliberately timed or not. Besides, people who disagree already think they are right and will likely not rethink the issue, anyways.
When you quibble about what exact point in a child’s development the spirit enters the body, you are only splitting hairs. Some feel that the potential for life should be respected as well as life. Some don’t. Also, the abortion issue from a moral standpoint is about more than the life of the fetus, it’s also (and I’d argue primarily) about agency—ironically, about choice.
Comment by SilverRain — October 1, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
ll it does is reinforce the existing position of the Church - that abortion is a serious action that ends biological life and should not be taken lightly and that is NOT murder (as some other denominations teach).
Ray, Nelson impresses from the beginning of the article the commandment against murder - “Thou shalt not kill.” I don’t think it’s an accident that this quote is included and impressed upon. It’s clear from its inclusion that he does consider abortion to be breaking this commandment and killing.
Comment by Chandelle — October 1, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Jessie — I agree with your confusion. Theoretically, if you oppose abortion because it is essencially murder, then it would be wrong in ALL cases (even rape, incest, etc). If the state were to allow abortion except for those cases, the women would have to prove to a court system that she was in fact raped, a victim of incest, or her life was on the line. All of these would take a subjective process on the part of someone else and would put her privacy in geopardy. I can not imagine Roe vs. Wade ever being overturned because of this “glitch.”
Further, a good percentage (a little over one third) of abortions are from people over 25 who are married or have been married. This is in direct contract to the “villian” in his article, which often seems to be the unmarried teenage GIRL. I loooove how he said that women do have a choice — the choice not to have sex. Uh huh. Nice. That to me is the crux of the whole issue — the sinfulless of the woman. It is bad to have an abortion if you sinned (had premarital sex) but not bad if you did not sin (rape). So the entirety of the consequence lays on the woman. Did he even mention the choice of men?
I also agree with Chandelle that a lot mroe could be done towards prevention. I personally do not agree morally that abortion is right, and I would never do it myself. However, I tend to lean towards the ProChoice camp because they have more concentrated efforts toward prevention of unplanned pregnancies and recognize the rights of women to make the choice.
And I won’t even go here… “These abortions are simply a form of birth control.” This just hurts.
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
RE 34: The Church has never taken a position on the thorny issue of precisely when “life” begins. Elder Nelson states that life begins at conception.
Well, then,…. I guess the Church finally has taken a position.
If life begins at conception according to the church does this mean that they are against birth control as well since the IUD and the Pill both can allow for conception but prevent implantation?
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Char, very well said, you make many excellent points.
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Char- Amen to everything you just said.
It’s interesting that in the church you can’t be forgive for murder. right? but at the end of Nelson’s article he says you CAN be forgiven for abortion. SO he seems to say it’s NOT the same as murder.
Comment by jessie — October 1, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
I am going to scream soon, so I will bow out of this one. Sorry to pick on Flo’s comment, but #60 is a perfect example of taking something and twisting it completely out of proportion. Nothing in that comment is fully accurate. Nothing.
The Church’s stance on abortion is stated very clearly on the web site. It is opposed to the practice in principle, but understands there are exceptions where it is not forbidden. Ultimately, it leaves the decision to those involved. It has no position on legal issues regarding abortion.
Let’s not make this more complicated than it is. Elder Nelson’s article doesn’t change the official position in any way.
Sorry, I can’t handle this anymore. The extrapolations are killing me.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
re: 58
Chandelle,- to be fair, Elder Nelson said:
This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.”
Abortion, in the church, is NOT seen as murder, but “like unto it” and therefore a serious transgression.
Comment by Patti — October 1, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Ray, please enlighten me
My first point merely is that a state that governs the legallity of abortion based on subjective and private matters, will never work. “No fault” abortions (stealing the term used for divorce) allow churches, congregations, bishops, families, and individuals decide what to do based on their personal knowledge and inspiration.
My second point merely illustrates that women carry the brunt force of blame and the resulting “consequences” when the issue is in fact much broader.
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
RE 63: “I am going to scream soon, so I will bow out of this one. Sorry to pick on Flo’s comment, but #60 is a perfect example of taking something and twisting it completely out of proportion. Nothing in that comment is fully accurate. Nothing.”
What part isn’t accurate? That the IUD and the Pill can allow for for conception but prevent implantation, because I know for a fact that is true.
And maybe my post was a bit twisting and extreme but at this time I am afraid of where the line will be drawn.
Let me requote my comment because all I did was ask a question after quoting another person to respond to them.
“If life begins at conception according to the church does this mean that they are against birth control as well since the IUD and the Pill both can allow for conception but prevent implantation?”
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Oops, I thought I was #60
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
I to had thought about conception versus implantation. The pill works by stopping the egg from entering the flatopian tubes, but also thins the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation should an egg still enter the falopian tubs and meet a sperm.
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
OK, a clarification for both Char and Flo:
1) I am in favor of no legal restrictions on abortion, primarily because I agree with the Church’s stance. In lieu of posting a LONG comment explaining why, I will link again to something I wrote on Mormon Matters a while ago.
When Moral Issues Become Political Issues
2) About #60, I said “fully accurate” - meaning both factually accurate and not misleading. From #60, with my commentary:
A) “The Church has never taken a position on the thorny issue of precisely when “life” begins. Elder Nelson states that life begins at conception.”
This is taking two different definitions of life (the first = “human life of a soul with spirit and body combined”; the second = biological life) and presenting them as if they are one - particularly given the next sentence.
B) Well, then,…. I guess the Church finally has taken a position.
No, it hasn’t. One apostle has reiterated what every scientist and rational, minimally educated person on the planet knows - that “biological life” begins at conception. That’s not the question; the question is when “legal life” and “soul life” begin - and the Church has not taken a stand on either of those issues.
C) If life begins at conception according to the church does this mean that they are against birth control as well since the IUD and the Pill both can allow for conception but prevent implantation?
Since this is a mis-statement in and of itself, the conclusion is an irrelevant extrapolation. The Church’s official stance on family planning and contraception is that those decisions are up to the individual parents.
Look, as I said on the other thread, all I want is a fair discussion of the Church’s actual stance and official statements. Elder Nelson’s talk didn’t change a thing. Not a thing.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
B) Well, then,…. I guess the Church finally has taken a position.
I did not say this, I was quoting post 34.
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
“Since this is a mis-statement in and of itself, the conclusion is an irrelevant extrapolation. The Church’s official stance on family planning and contraception is that those decisions are up to the individual parents.”
It was not a statement but a question. And I am relieved to know that the Church will not be changing their position on this issue.
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
#70 - Got it. I missed that, since there weren’t any quotation marks. I thought it was a response to #34 - so I didn’t go back and read #34.
I apologize.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Its all good, I am new to this message board format so I apologize for being unclear.
Comment by Flo — October 1, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
I would advise persons who are really interested in a rational discussion of this issue to read the new book by Douglas Kmeic “Can a Catholic Support Him” and substitute “Mormon” for Catholic.
Kmeic is a well known Consitutional Law scholar who is Catholic. He is formally dean of the law school at Cathoilc University in Washington D.C. Kmeic was a supporter of Mitt Romney in the primary and has now switched to supporting Obama. Kmeic served in the Regan and first Bush Administration and has participated in cases before the U.S Supreme Court on Abortion. He is staunchly pro life.
He argues that the Obama position and that of the Democratic platform which emphasizes abortion reduction through greater access to contraception, more support for unmarried mothers in terms of health care and child care and support for measures to make adoption easier is much more likely to reduce the number of abortions than overturning Roe V. Wade,
In a recent interview which you can find on beliefnet.com he discusses how he and his wife have been involved in counseling umarried ,pregnant college students and encourgaing them to have their babies instead of having an abortion. As I indicated earlier Kmeic has been involved in a number of legal challenges to Abortion before the U.S Supreme Court. He indicates that he believes that the counseling he and his wife have done has been more useful and rewarding that his legal work against abortion.
I wish Brother Nelson would read the book,
Comment by John Willis — October 1, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Ray, I’m sympathetic to your stance with one small exception. Your parsing out of biological life and soul life is interesting and useful, but it is not at all clear from Elder Nelson’s words that that is what he meant at all.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 1, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
The Ensign does its topic/article selection 12-18 months in advance, so I would wager that it is, as Janet said, “some of both.”
Comment by Sara — October 1, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Full quote from Elder Nelson. Note that he says that after conception, “a continuum of growth results in a new human being”. So perhaps Ray is correct. The “life” at conception is biological life, not human life. But what, exactly, is the difference between the two? Embryos “alive” fewer than 22 days are “biological” life and not protected, but as soon as the heart beats, the “biological life” becomes “human life”?
I know these issues are difficult to work through, but it’s important to understand what our leaders are saying.
Comment by ECS — October 1, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Kinda back to the topic at hand, if this article was politically motivated, as I think it was because it spoke about the legistlation of abortion — do you think there are other “weightier” matters at hand?
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Re: 59
I’m actually not so sure that “even if” abortion = murder it would be wrong in all cases. there are plenty of examples of things you *cannot* force someone to endure, *even if* someone is going to die because of it. (kidney transplant?) I guess there is some play with the term “murder”–because murder implies automatically that it’s wrong and if we’ve decided it’s murder we’ve decided it’s wrong–but the term is prejudicial because it assumes mal-intent where none might exist.
Actually, I looked it up: the maternal pregnancy mortality rate for poor, black, women (one of the most likely groups to get an abortion) is about the same as the mortality rate of a kidney donor.
Comment by Isis — October 1, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Kinda back to the topic at hand, if this article was politically motivated, as I think it was because it spoke about the legistlation of abortion — do you think there are other “weightier” matters at hand?
Last year there were apparently over 800,000 abortions in the US. If you believe that each and every one of those represents a murder, then the answer to your question is “no”.
Comment by JimD — October 1, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Given how publication cycles work, I’m positive this is just coincidental. The article was most likely finished and turned in months ago.
Comment by Firebyrd — October 1, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
The cause of most abortions is, if you’re a believer in such, god.
Not every fertilized ovum gets implanted. In fact most do not. So out they go in a natural procedure called abortion. Not every implanted zygot developes so it is naturally aborted. Not every implanted developing embryo continues to grow and is naturally aborted. Abortion is a natural everyday occurence. This is tenth grade biology.
It’s only when a woman decides to abort does this become an procedure to be questioned. Walla! it’s a political issue instead of a biological one.
Comment by Ruby — October 1, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I personally do not agree morally that abortion is right, and I would never do it myself. However, I tend to lean towards the ProChoice camp because they have more concentrated efforts toward prevention of unplanned pregnancies and recognize the rights of women to make the choice.
Char, I wrote a post a few weeks ago basically taking this position, especially the ways in which we need to prevent abortion (since making it illegal will not do this), if you are interested in reading it.
Comment by Chandelle — October 1, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Ruby,
What is Walla? Do you mean voila?
Rather than lecturing on tenth grade biology, go brush up on your elementary level language arts.
Comment by bbh — October 1, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
I hope that this article isn’t politically motivated, because the consequences could make everything messy. For example, the Church’s position is that abortion is only allowed (for lack of a better term) in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, and when the child will not live beyond birth. Okay. But what happens if someone reads this article and decides that this non-endorsement of ‘abortion as birth control’ means they should vote for a pro-life candidate or proposition. What if, in a best case scenario, that pro-life candidate or proposition has the exact same philosophies? Now, even if you fall under one of those exceptions, you must legally prove it. You may be required to wait for a guilty rape conviction, or a positive DNA test proving incest (but what about step- or adopted fathers?), or a legal hearing to lawfully decide if the mother’s health was in danger… And what exactly is her “health?” The position states if the pregnancy “seriously jeopardizes the health of the mother,” not the life of the mother, and I’m not sure someone in that situation should have to wait it out in court.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am very much pro-life, but the political and legal implications (in the USA, anyway) of the abortion question are complicated and far-reaching, even with the best of intentions.
Comment by that1girl — October 1, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Can someone explain why abortion should be permitted in the case of rape or incest? I’ve often wondered why these are two acceptable exceptions.
Comment by Kalola — October 1, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
#86. To quote Elder Nelson:
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.
Comment by that1girl — October 1, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Because in Mormon theology, justification for abortion seems to attach to the agency/health of the woman and not to the ‘personhood’ of the fetus.
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 1, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
RE: #86: Because a woman’s right to choose has been taken from her in those cases. They are acts of violence.
Comment by mallyeren — October 1, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
This is the part I questioned in my comments on post #59. And for further discussion on the matter, it is interesting to note that he uses the word “choice.” He is essentially (to me) saying that it is ok in these instances because it was not the choice of the woman to have sex.
So at what point is rape… rape? As in, at what point is it your “choice” to get pregnant compounded? If you are compelled to have sex for financial or social pressures, if your method of birth control fails, if you are uneducated about sex and believe myths (i.e. you can’t get pregnant during your period), etc and end up pregnant against your “choice” — would not the same “choice” rule apply as to those who are forcefully raped?
I also note the word “innocent”, which further describes my heartache for women. What does this mean for any woman (married or unmarried) who finds herself with an unintended pregnancy? The opposite to the word innocent is the word “blame” and I just hurt to think of women who feel blamed for an unintended pregnancy.
Anyway, still not quite on topic. My bad! But, I think it illustrates how abortion shouldn’t be the decision of governmental institutions — but rather of the individuals and their beliefs.
Comment by Char — October 1, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Another thought on 86: There may also be an argument that abortions in case of rape/incest are necessary as an act of self-defense to preserve one’s mental health or personal dignity. Under this rationale, a woman who aborts the product of rape is no more culpable than a woman who kills a man who is trying to rape her.
Comment by JimD — October 1, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Perhaps the timing is pertinent because the issue is brought up more around election time.
Comment by Barb @ getupandplay — October 1, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
#3 - Janet -That little rhyme is exactly why I stopped going by my birth name.
Comment by big mama — October 1, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Janet - I believe that rhyme is from Rocky Horror Pic show, so a friend once told me. I don’t recall for sure.
Comment by big mama — October 1, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
#93 - Good to meet you, Trannie.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
I’m laughing Ray.
Comment by big mama — October 1, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
It’s Big Mama Trannie to you!
Comment by big mama — October 1, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
#95 That’s hilarious!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
I work for an academic journal, and although I don’t know how the church publications are put together, we do know well in advance which articles are going into which issues–and we have some flexibility in putting things together for a topical issue (though occasionally we’re just trying to fill the pages up). And slotting articles for an issue isn’t a job a lackey or designer does just slapping stuff in however it fits, it’s an editorial decision. No matter when this was completed or submitted, it easily could have been held or rushed for the October issue. It may not originally been intended for this especial issue, but it had to occur to someone that it could be seen as a political statement.
Comment by marianne — October 1, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Big Mama Trannie –> BMT –> BLT –> MLT (Mutton, Lettuce & Tomato sandwich where the mutton is reeeeal lean)
OK; I’m getting tired, but this proves that anything is less than six degrees of separation from The Princess Bride.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
No more rhymes now, I mean it!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
There is another rhyme out there. I’ve seen it!
OK, people are starting to talk.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Anybody got a peanut?
Comment by Quimby — October 1, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
#103 And that is why the maidens love her!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 1, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Humperdink! Humperdink! humperdink, Humperdink! Humperdink!Humperdink!Humperdink!
Comment by jessie — October 1, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Politically motivated? probably, but nothing new really. If you look at the Ensign just prior to the ERA vote there were very political articles by Joseph Fielding Smith, Monson, Packard, and statements from the first presidency affirming the church’s political position on the issue, things seem kinda tame this time around…
Comment by Beekeeper — October 1, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Ray, Big Mama, Quimby, CWC, and Jessie . . . our new comedy troupe! Thanks for the giggles after a long day of traveling! Woohoo! I’m slap happy. I get to ride ferry boats. I don’t often get to ride boats. I’ve often not been in boats (2 more points for whoever places that allusion–I like me this game).
It’s actually not the “Janet” rhyme that has caused me mayhem but rather the character’s other nickname. Once upon a virginal Molly Mormon day I strolled across BYU’s campus only to have a male friend loudly hail me by waving madly and screaming, “Hey, Janet! Janet! Hey, SL*T.” It was both hilarious and deeply embarrassing
.
Comment by Janet — October 2, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Well, I hope you’re happy, Janet. I’m about to leave for home and now I’ll be singing “Creature of the Night” the entire way.
Comment by Quimby — October 2, 2008 @ 1:54 am
sam, I want a prophet who speaks about the events of our day, too. I’d just appreciate it if that “speaking out” didn’t appear to support one political party exclusively.
Well, then, maybe one other political party simply has it wrong on this issue. Could that be possible? The Prophets speak out against a lot of things, it is only natural that from time to time their statements will coincide with the platforms of various political parties. Try to tell the General Authorities that they can say whatever they feel inspired to say, as long as one of the political parties has not yet stated a position on the issue.
You are asking the impossible.
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 7:23 am
Now for a real subversive thought: If Moroni were to go back and edit an anthology of Ensign, New Era, and Friend articles, would everything written by every apostle make the cut?
This is irrelevant. Our Church believes in continuing revelation. Are Moroni’s teachings your only standard? If so, then there are a lot of gaps that need filling.
By the way, Mormon is the one who compiled the Book of Mormon, not Moroni.
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 7:26 am
I loooove how he said that women do have a choice — the choice not to have sex. Uh huh. Nice. That to me is the crux of the whole issue — the sinfulless of the woman. It is bad to have an abortion if you sinned (had premarital sex) but not bad if you did not sin (rape). So the entirety of the consequence lays on the woman. Did he even mention the choice of men?
Considering this is an article about abortion, than I think it makes sense for Nelson to talk primarily about the woman. Men can’t get abortions because they cannot get pregnant. They have no choice in the matter. They may encourage abortions, which is terrible no-no in the Church as well, by the way, and it happens to be included in the Big Baptismal Interview questions.
If this were an article on rape, I think he would come down more heavily on men. And then I could come to FMH and scream sexism just like you are and sound just as ridiculous doing so.
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Based on the final paragraph of the article it looks to me as though its purpose is to encourage women who do not want motherhood for whatever reason, to choose adoption over abortion.
There are more couples who want to adopt than there are babies to be adopted.
How unfortunate it is that it is so difficult to see beyond the emotional hot button reaction to a discussion of the actual purpose of the article.
Comment by Claudia — October 2, 2008 @ 7:58 am
How unfortunate it is that it is so difficult to see beyond the emotional hot button reaction to a discussion of the actual purpose of the article.
Unfortunate indeed. There are too many members who sit comfortably in the scorner’s chair when they hear or read the words of our Prophets. A lot of them are lurking here.
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 8:30 am
LOL, the scorner’s chair? MMMMMMMMMM. I love me some Bacon in the morning.
Comment by ECS — October 2, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Men have no choice in the matter???? I am banging my head. So the article stresses that woman do have this “choice” but it’s the choice to have sex or not. And men have no choice????? They have the same choice — both to have sex and have an abortion. I think if the decision were to lay as heavily on both genders and effect both in the same way — there would be no question on legallity of abortion!
I have always found this response to be so cut and dry, wrapped in this tight little package in the end, that hugely mocks the process of a pregnancy and the enormous toll it takes on a woman… emotional, physically, mentally. It’s interesting that these things are considered in the case of rape, but if the woman is not raped…. none of these challenges exsist? I really really admire women who can go through a pregnancy for adoption. There was a woman in my ward who waited 5 years to have two little twins adopted through LDS Family Services. It was the most beautiful and selfless act I have ever seen. However, I will never judge someone who does not have the strength and resources to go through and understand wholeheartedly.
Comment by Char — October 2, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Char, I just want to point out that the standard feminist mantra when a woman wants an abortion and the father does not is that he has no say in the matter - that it’s her body, so it’s her choice. Those who take this line would scream patriarchal oppression if the man tried to insist on an abortion against the woman’s wishes. They are very forceful in this, and I don’t disagree with them that it is her choice when there is a conflict.
However, you can’t take that position then turn around and say, “They have the same choice — both to have sex and have an abortion.” Well, you can, but it’s not consistent - and it fundamentally undermines classic feminist arguments.
Comment by Ray — October 2, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Ray, personally, I think that although it is her body — that the decision should rest on both of them. Really I do. I think the mindset that women are the only barrers of that choice has resulted in the idea that men are free from the decision and thus the consequence.
It is a tough call, and yes, a woman should have the final say. But to say that an abortion is purely a woman’s issue would do exactly what has happened, rest the responsibility soley on her even though there are two parties involved.
Comment by Char — October 2, 2008 @ 11:11 am
And men have no choice????? They have the same choice — both to have sex and have an abortion.
Wow. I actually have choice as a man? You mean I can physically force my pregnant girlfriend on the operating table, tie her down, and say, “Go for it, doctor.”
And I thought we all believed that women’s bodies are their own here. Great. I guess it isn’t so cut and dried after all.
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Or I can refuse to let her have one. Tie her up in the basement until she delivers the baby!
What kind of Pro-choice are you, actually?
Comment by sam — October 2, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Sam, Sam, Sam… I was commenting on the the fact that he says women have a choice to engage in sex or not. Men have that same choice! And I do think men should be more involved in the decision. The force you speak of in your article is uncalled for.
Comment by Char — October 2, 2008 @ 11:18 am
And if this is the case (which I do not think it should be), that women are the full barrers of the choice to have an abortion — then women should be the final decision on the legallity of abortion. Don’t ya think?
Comment by Char — October 2, 2008 @ 11:20 am
“then women should be the final decision on the legality of abortion.” “Political Presiding - on the next episode of FMH Live!”
Comment by Ray — October 2, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Men can insist on an abortion when they get pregnant.
Comment by Ruby — October 2, 2008 @ 11:49 am
and ONE MORE THING- I would have really liked to see other moral issues in the ensign, like the fact that 40 million americans are without healthcare-
The Church leadership is probably less concerned about a purely American matter than they are about issues that could affect the worldwide saints. By their calculus, SSM and abortion are international issues, US healthcare is not.
Comment by queuno — October 2, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
queuno - access to medical care is an international issue. Many LDS members of other countries do not have access to adequate health care.
Comment by Travis — October 2, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Sam, Ray, etc - I am most heartened to see that you both agree that it is a woman’s body and ultimately should be her decision. However I do know women who have been forced to have abortions by their husbands or boyfriends. “Force” is certainly not the same thing as “making a decision together”; but don’t pretend that it doesn’t happen.
I also know husbands/boyfriends who were actively involved in the decision to have an abortion. Recently a couple of friends of ours had their third child. A few months later she had a pregnancy scare. She and her husband discussed it and decided that if she was pregnant she would have an abortion. As it turned out she wasn’t - but that is an example of a couple making the decision together.
We fail when we assume that everyone or even most people who have abortions are single women without the benefit of having the baby daddy involved. In fact I know far more women who have had abortions while married (often with older children) or in serious, committed relationships than who have had abortions while single and uncommitted.
Comment by Quimby — October 2, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
As to how a woman can be forced to have an abortion - These are not healthy relationships and generally the forced abortion is preceded by months if not years of physical and emotional abuse.
And yes, there have been cases of women who have been forced by their boyfriends (generally through court orders) to not have abortions.
Comment by Quimby — October 2, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
#126 - Quimby, I’m not sure why I am addressed in that comment. I agree totally with the substance of both comments, and I’m quite positive I’ve never made a comment anywhere that would have prompted it.
Comment by Ray — October 2, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
(Ray, #116 - Although you didn’t imply that it was impossible for a woman to be forced to have an abortion, you seemed to disagree with Char saying that men should be involved in this decision)
Comment by Quimby — October 2, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
#129 - ? How did you get that out of #116?
Let me be clear. I said “when there is a conflict” the ultimate choice should be the woman’s. Perhaps I should have bolded and capitalized that part.
The ideal is that both the man and the woman make a mutual decision, but if it has to be decided by one of them, it should be the woman making that decision. Do you disagree?
I also have no idea what prompted the third paragraph. I never addressed the marital situation of women who have abortions. In fact, I took great pains to say “man” and “woman” specifically to keep it open to anyone in that situation, married or not.
All I said in #116 is that it is hypocritical for anyone to claim that it’s all up to the woman (that the man has no say in it) then also claim that the man has just as much choice as the woman. That’s all. That comment said absolutely nothing about my opinion; it simply was addressing the need to be careful of hypocrisy.
Comment by Ray — October 2, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
#124 queno-
you make a good point that the general authorities should speak about worldwide issues…
however the spirit of my comment is that issues of healthcare and the poor are often overlooked. Issues of homosexuality and abortion take center stage. It was jesus who LIVED with the poor. We admire that, call him a perfect man, the song of god, and know we can never be quite like him… yet we are commanded too.
Why do we often overlook the poor and sick of this world? Why do our wonderful, righteous leaders take stands on these few political issues (in one party) and ignore the vast amount of other ways we can be like Christ. If we pay tithing, donate to the humanitarian aid fund, even serve a full time mission, we can check off that box about giving of our time an resources to lift up the poor, the sick, the weary… that’s what Christ did…. WHy can’t we be more like that?
Comment by Jessie — October 2, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Ray, I certainly meant no offense. If you would like I will edit your name out of that post.
Comment by Quimby — October 2, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
No, Quimby. It’s cool. I knew you didn’t mean to offend; I just was surprised. After all, I knew what I meant.
Misunderstandings happen. I’ve spent years building up an immunity to that type of powder. I just wanted to make sure what I actually believe was clear. That’s all.
Comment by Ray — October 2, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
does it matter if it is coincidental or politically motivated?
Comment by jamie — October 3, 2008 @ 12:14 am
#134 - YES, because the church has always pleaded political neutrality.
Comment by Rebecca — October 3, 2008 @ 4:29 am
I wonder how much it matters, in the end, though. I am pro-choice and neither the content or the timing of the article changes my mind…nor am I a voter who chooses a candidate on a single issue.
I don’t mind the church recapping its well-known positions on social issues- even the ones with which I disagree. I take issue with direct political involvement, such as donating money to any candidate or political issue and pressuring members to do the same- such as in the gay marriage debate. The church can give 100 talks about its definition of marriage or the begining of life, but the moment they have a letter read from the pulpit telling me how to vote or pressuring me to send donations to specific causes, then, they’ve overstepped.
Comment by Kimberly — October 3, 2008 @ 7:56 am
for the last few weeks i’ve been working on a series of posts concerning mormonism and abortion. when i found out about nelson’s article last week i have been contemplating whether or not to respond as i feel he has made poor argumentative choices.
then i came across this in the salt lake tribune. i can’t help but feel they are related.
Comment by the narrator — October 3, 2008 @ 9:45 am
#137 the narrator:
From the SLT : “The key bill in the package backed by the legislators would ban all abortions”
They are going to have a tough time convincing god to stop natural or spontaneous, nearly monthy for some women, abortions. After all he designed the system to not allow every fertilized ovum to result in a birth.
Comment by Ruby — October 3, 2008 @ 10:02 am
#138 Ruby,
Your forgot the God clause - No matter how immoral something may seem, if God is doing it, it’s okay for Him.
Comment by the narrator — October 3, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Thank you for bringing this up. I am heartsick over it and glad I’m not the only one questioning it’s timing. I wrote a letter to my baby daughter here: http://lucyletters.blogspot.com/2008/10/heartsick.html
Comment by Margaret FiveCrows — October 3, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Margaret, that was beautiful. My heart is in the same place as yours.
In everything I have read about Jesus, I do not think he would make the judgement about what was a moral reason for an abortion — that’s between God and the inflicted parties. He also would not excude gays and lesbians! (another topic entirely) When did the church move from inclusion to exclusion and passing judgement? That’s not what learned in Sunday School.
Comment by Char — October 3, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Well, I guess I would have to say yes. I had a question about what you meant politically, but I figured out (or so I think) that you mean because what is happening in politics, in reversing Roe vs. Wade. But I think it is more than just political. I think it is the church saying, clear cut, hands down, we don’t believe in abortion and here’s why.
Interesting article, though!
Comment by Sunshine — October 4, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Talk about political. The timing is very much intended to remind voters to vote based on this issue. This issue gave us Bush and as a life long republican I truly believe he has damaged the integrity of the party and this country for many years to come or at least until a demacrat actually sinks lower than he has. I really wish we could get past the whole issue. Very few look at abortion as a preferred method of birth control any more and the abortion rate continues to drop. The president has almost no influence at all. Beyond appointing judges they have nothing to do with abortion and thoseappointments have been a real roll of the dice. It is to late to have any real choice it is narrowed down to 2 but lets look at who can build this country up not just polarize more.
Comment by John — October 5, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
I think the article was meant to be read just before the elections, just as I believe the emphasis during Elder Christofferson’s conference talk on taking care of the poor was meant to be heard just before elections.
I think Elder Nelson’s position is essentially pro-choice. What he (and officially, the church) opposes is unfettered access to abortion. He rails against the notion that abortion is the very first or only option for a woman who is pregnant with a child she does not want or cannot keep. The phrase “culture of life”refers to searching for ways to let a developing human live.
All in all, I thought it was a timely reminder.
Comment by L.C. Goddard — October 6, 2008 @ 5:56 am
I didn’t vote. I don’t feel like its politically motivated necessarily. Just that we are reminded about some important topic to think about when voting. But the church isn’t making an outright stand as to who we should vote for by printing the articles. I think we are to decide who is best for us and our views, not whats best for the church. The church has withstood drastic changes of time. It’s us who will have the brunt of those changes.
Comment by big mama — October 6, 2008 @ 9:10 am
I wrote a post about this article on my politicalds site. Basically, I feel that Elder Nelson’s talk is scathing toward current abortion law, but I don’t think he embraces the extreme pro-life position of someone like Palin. I didn’t feel that it politically favored one party over another, but I did feel that he gave a pretty scathing review of the standard pro-choice position.
Comment by Stephanie — October 6, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
[…] “Poll: Abortion Article Timing,” by fMhLisa at Feminist Mormon Housewives […]
Pingback by Commentary on Elder Nelson’s Article on Abortion « Mormon Magz — October 19, 2008 @ 11:22 am