The Church's position on abortion...

[_subgenius]

What bothers me about this is the last part which seems to fly in the face of the Church teaching that the specific purpose for coming to earth is to gain a body.
Shouldn't the baby with serious defects be allowed to be born and gain a body according to LDS doctrine?

no, because "to get a body" is actually not the "specific purpose"...to get life experience and progress is...yet more of your creative doctrine interpretations.

[_bcuzbcuz]

no, because "to get a body" is actually not the "specific purpose"...to get life experience and progress is...yet more of your creative doctrine interpretations.

I have posted earlier about my foster child who was shaken violently at the age of three months. The damage incurred was so extensive that the child lost sight (eyes worked but the brain could no longer sort nor remember any images). Brain swelling through bleeding and bruising, caused epileptic seizures and spasms of pain throughout the child's tiny body from the age of three months to roughly around the age of three years. To give an example, muscle spasms occurred with 15 minute intervals so that a pattern emerged. Spasm, a reaction similar to an electric shock, body arching with muscular tension and pain, crying until the spasm subsided, relaxation into a fitful slumber for a few minutes, then a new spasm. Every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for three years.

Add to this, because of the shaking, the child lost all voluntary control of any and all body muscles except in the head and mouth, completely quadriplegic. The child could suckle but not eat nor swallow properly and at the age of two had a feeding tube inserted into her stomach that remains to this day (22 years later).

Although the child has good hearing the brain does not seem to store information, nor can it be retrieved, with the exception of recognition of some music (children's songs repeated many, many, many thousands of times (yes, I know every word and note of the WHOLE album). The child has never spoken any word, cannot repeat sounds at will, and there is no recognition to common stimuli such as hearing own name. The child remains frozen in time to the moment the damage occurred at three months old.

Now to my question. If the purpose of life is: "to get life experience and progress" what possible purpose exists in this child's life?

[_Tobin]

Actually, as far as I understand Mormon Doctrine, to obtain a body is the only point of life. As long as that is accomplished, the plan of God is fulfilled. Anything beyond that is bonus.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Actually, as far as I understand Mormon Doctrine, to obtain a body is the only point of life. As long as that is accomplished, the plan of God is fulfilled. Anything beyond that is bonus.

So the purpose of life is to get a body? That's it?

Cheque, please!

[_Drifting]

What bothers me about this is the last part which seems to fly in the face of the Church teaching that the specific purpose for coming to earth is to gain a body.
Shouldn't the baby with serious defects be allowed to be born and gain a body according to LDS doctrine?

no, because "to get a body" is actually not the "specific purpose"...to get life experience and progress is...yet more of your creative doctrine interpretations.

So why would the Church advocate aborting foetus's when there is a chance of them living and getting life experience?

[_subgenius]

Now to my question. If the purpose of life is: "to get life experience and progress" what possible purpose exists in this child's life?

1. You assume that the child receives no experiences, has no cognitive existence, and has no ability to "live".
2. You assume that the child's purpose is not connected to yours.

If we assume #1, then you must surely concede #2 because otherwise your fostering the child makes no sense, is unreasonable, and illogical...and arguably unnatural.

If we disregard #1 then we still must concede #2 (based on the facts you have presented) and therefore must recognize that it is difficult to know another, almost as difficult as it is to love another...as your story illustrates.

[_subgenius]

So why would the Church advocate aborting foetus's when there is a chance of them living and getting life experience?

I am not sure the "chance" has been illustrated as guaranteed.
the balance of the whole against the part is not one that everyone is an expert in attaining, nor am i likely to recognize such a balance anyway....but as to your question...perhaps it is that getting a body does not guarantee one getting an experience/progress...or perhaps it is a physical manifestation of an inappropriate "getting"...or perhaps there is an experience/progress achieved anyway...
bottom line...ask the church.

[_Drifting]

So why would the Church advocate aborting foetus's when there is a chance of them living and getting life experience?

I am not sure the "chance" has been illustrated as guaranteed.
the balance of the whole against the part is not one that everyone is an expert in attaining, nor am i likely to recognize such a balance anyway....but as to your question...perhaps it is that getting a body does not guarantee one getting an experience/progress...or perhaps it is a physical manifestation of an inappropriate "getting"...or perhaps there is an experience/progress achieved anyway...
bottom line...ask the church.

Why would the Church support the termination of a perfectly healthy foetus?

[_subgenius]

Why would the Church support the termination of a perfectly healthy foetus?

does it?
"Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God." - LDS Church
keyword "elective"
further...
"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

i don't see anywhere that the Church specifically supports the termination of a "perfectly healthy fetus"
do you have a reference that mentions a PERFECTLY HEALTHY foetus? (or even one that anglicizes the word fetus?)

[_son of Ishmael]

Why would the Church support the termination of a perfectly healthy foetus?

does it?
"Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God." - LDS Church
keyword "elective"
further...
"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

i don't see anywhere that the Church specifically supports the termination of a "perfectly healthy fetus"
do you have a reference that mentions a PERFECTLY HEALTHY foetus? (or even one that anglicizes the word fetus?)

The way I read this the statement states that an abortion may be justified in cases of incest or rape. It those cases the health of the fetus is not taken into account. So a perfectly healthy fetus of a rape victim could be aborted