Conference talk on abortion

[Doctor Steuss]

The church wants to reiterate that spirit children are inserted into fetuses

At what point? The moment the sperm penetrates the egg? When the fetus has brain wave activity? or later, the moment the newborn first takes a breath and thus can be recorded in the LDS church's records?

This is one of those things that has sticky implications for LDS theology; especially while trying to legislate the morality of family planning.

If a spirit isn't placed inside a physical body until the "quickening," then abortion at any stage prior to viability is largely morally neutral. "Exceptions" aren't necessary, because they are entirely arbitrary.

If it's placed at, say, conception... well, the implications there are pretty wild. There are probably at least a million frozen embryos in the US alone right now. Take all of the industrialized nations that have IVF combined, and that number would probably push to at least two million. That's two million spirits trapped in frozen embryos. Some may be trapped for decades, only to then be disposed of. Imagine the entirety of your mortal probation being 30 years inside a freezer.

[Moksha]

Imagine the entirety of your mortal probation being 30 years inside a freezer.

When you are making up theology, it is hard to conceive of contingencies. Given the Mormon proclivity toward polygamy, it makes sense to condition wives to their husbands' indiscretions, as in Elder Anderson's talk.

[drumdude]

At what point? The moment the sperm penetrates the egg? When the fetus has brain wave activity? or later, the moment the newborn first takes a breath and thus can be recorded in the LDS church's records?

This is one of those things that has sticky implications for LDS theology; especially while trying to legislate the morality of family planning.

If a spirit isn't placed inside a physical body until the "quickening," then abortion at any stage prior to viability is largely morally neutral. "Exceptions" aren't necessary, because they are entirely arbitrary.

If it's placed at, say, conception... well, the implications there are pretty wild. There are probably at least a million frozen embryos in the US alone right now. Take all of the industrialized nations that have IVF combined, and that number would probably push to at least two million. That's two million spirits trapped in frozen embryos. Some may be trapped for decades, only to then be disposed of. Imagine the entirety of your mortal probation being 30 years inside a freezer.

Fortunately since spirits very likely don’t exist, this is as vacuous as hand wringing about how many angels are killed when you drop the head of a pin on the floor.

The fact that this moral quandary about frozen embryos is essentially intractable and also completely irrelevant to most abortion opponents means that they don’t really believe life begins at conception either.

Only in the most extremely zealous religious mind would you care about saving all these frozen embryos. Dan Peterson, Rusty Nelson, for all their whinging about abortion, they aren’t losing sleep at night worrying about these millions of souls frozen in laboratories.

[IWMP]

https://youtu.be/H95Ta75rkTA

I have strong doubts that the letters supposedly read from real young single mothers in the church are genuine. For such a complex and painful situation, the letters are almost childishly simple.

The church wants to reiterate that spirit children are inserted into fetuses

At what point? The moment the sperm penetrates the egg? When the fetus has brain wave activity? or later, the moment the newborn first takes a breath and thus can be recorded in the LDS church's records?

and it doesn’t care about the technicalities of fetal development. One wonders what happens to the spirit children who are aborted.

Or miscarried for that matter?

The church also wants to reiterate that abortion is fine in cases of rape,

Why's that? Does that include consensual, statutory rape? Is it because it is an unwanted pregnancy and that puts the child at a distinct disadvantage in life? Is that because the child of rape would be a reminder of that traumatic experience for the mother? I.e., the mother's emotional state is a determinant? Hasn't the church started down a slippery slope here? What about consensual one-night stand and the father won't be in the child's life? Is that unwanted child disadvantaged like the child of a rape? And should it be a health care professional assessing the emotional state of and thus impact on the mother?

incest,

The law of different states and nations define incest differently--first cousins in some states would be incestuous, but not in others, for example. How many degrees of consanguinity is the LDS church talking here?

serious risk to the mother,

Is that just physical risk or does that include mental risk too? How does the LDS church quantify this risk? All pregnancies pose a risk of possible death to the mother, so who makes the decision about when it might be a serious risk?

and when the fetus cannot survive long after birth.

But if it can get on church records even if takes a single breath, it's okay to deny the fetus that opportunity?

The implication is that children with severe but survivable birth defects must be born. I wonder how many general authorities have been full time caretakers of mentally disabled adult children with no money for assistance.

Lastly, those who get an abortion are portrayed as making a rash, hasty, irrational decision. I suppose it’s a small step forward from the days when women were characterized as getting recreational abortions for the fun of it. But still disappointing to see the full impact of these situations on families minimized.

Yes. But it all depends on the spin. A tithe-paying couple's teen daughter gets pregnant and has an abortion. Spun right, it was 'rape' (statutory). Or, the fetus posed a serious risk to the teen girl. Another teen girl gets pregnant, but it is not spun, or spun poorly, and she's a 'baby murderer' that needs to be shamed and excoriated.

I think when looking at justification, we can't really decide a hard line of what is acceptable but in keeping with religious morality. I know someone who had an abortion who spoke to the bishop and wasn't judged at all. But That person struggled so much. She said she was sat in a room with lots of people and she couldn't believe they were all there for that purpose and they didn't seem upset or bothered. She said she asked the desk why they were all there and the person said same as you. She was in a state and still carries that guilt and shame even though looking at all the circumstances, she didn't really have a choice. I think in that situation she made the best choice even though I don't really agree with abortion. I think people using it as a contraception, having multiple abortions and not bothering to do something to stop it happening, those people come across as if they don't value life. Probably few but I've heard it happen.

But, again, even in those cases it's not something we should be able to judge because we don't know what is in someone's heart.

[MG 2.0]

Imagine the entirety of your mortal probation being 30 years inside a freezer.

I think God has a handle on that and all will work out. I think the main point of anything that comes from a general authority/church policy in regard to abortion is that an elective abortion is unfortunate and should be avoided wherever possible. Exempting exceptions.

A potential life has been extinguished. It's that simple. The church teaches that we should celebrate life, not extinguish it because it might be inconvenient.

It's interesting that the critics are always looking for the next 'big thing' that a general authority says or does that puts them on the chopping block of criticism.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

And in completely unrelated news, Heber C. Kimball had one of his wives get an abortion. Nothing to see here folks.

Heber C. Kimball, recalling his courtship with and marriage to a woman, claimed he "taught in our young days, when she got into the family way, to send for a doctor and get rid of the child"; a course that she followed. (Footnote 9).

Heber C. Kimball in the Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool, 1857), V:91-92.

[MG 2.0]

And in completely unrelated news, Heber C. Kimball had one of his wives get an abortion. Nothing to see here folks.

Heber C. Kimball, recalling his courtship with and marriage to a woman, claimed he "taught in our young days, when she got into the family way, to send for a doctor and get rid of the child"; a course that she followed. (Footnote 9).

Heber C. Kimball in the Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool, 1857), V:91-92.

I've read those two pages. Your contextual misappropriation is showing. Heber C. Kimball didn't teach this. Far from it. Go back and actually read page 91 and 92. Don't rely on websites that focus on misappropriation.

Some people will fall for it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

https://archive.org/details/JoDV05/page/n97/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/JoDV05/page/n99/mode/2up

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Here's another sourced piece of information on abortions in the early church. The book is written from interviews and other sources related to Joseph Smith'. Read the section(s) on Nauvoo around pages 55-65 or so. The author interviewed a woman who described the wide practice of church leaders "getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy":

https://archive.org/details/josephsmith ... 8/mode/2up

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Heber C. Kimball’s Conference talk, “Abortion here is as common as wheat.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymv94F2nC_A