PLEASE NOTE: This post is first in a series of four about abortion. Post 2 discusses the scriptures; Post 3 discusses the living prophet’s teachings (kind of); Post 4 discusses equality between men and women. If your comment is focused on the topic of a different essay, I’m going to defer responding to it until that particular essay.
The unique doctrines taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could easily support the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.
Catholics and Evangelicals don’t believe in the pre-existence. They believe that God creates the spirit and the body at about the same time (let’s not discuss the exact timing of ensoulment) and so an abortion wipes out a soul’s only chance for a body and condemns the soul either to limbo/hell (per Catholicism) or to an unknown fate (per Evangelicals who may differ about the fate of unsaved souls, but who generally acknowledge that the Bible doesn’t give a clear answer on this topic). The fate of a soul provides much of the religious impetus for the pro-life movement. They’re anxious to save baby souls from the gaps in their own theology.
The LDS doctrine of the pre-existence and the eternal nature of souls leaves plenty of room for LDS faithful to be pro-choice, actually, which is why the LDS stance on abortion has always been more pro-choice than religions like Catholicism and Evangelicalism. We wouldn’t even need to change any LDS beliefs, just the current interpretation of them. Let’s begin by reviewing our basic beliefs about the eternal nature of our souls.
Each person who comes to earth is a unique son or daughter of God. Our personal journey did not begin at birth. Before we were born, we were together in a world of preparation where we “received [our] first lessons in the world of spirits.” (D&C 138:56). Jehovah told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.” (Jeremiah 1:5).
Some may question if life begins with the formation of an embryo, or when the heart begins to beat, or when the baby can live outside of the womb, but for us, there is no question that spirit daughters and sons of God are on their own personal journeys coming to earth to receive a body and experience mortality.
Elder Neil A. Anderson, “The Personal Journey of a Child of God,” General Conference, April 2021.
If you’ll indulge me, I’m going to continue with LDS theology and pro-choice beliefs couched in General Conference language to help demonstrate just how easy it would be for the Church to support all reproductive rights.
For a woman, having a child can be a great sacrifice. For reasons that he has not revealed to us, Heavenly Father designed our bodies in such a way that men and women are able to engage in the sacred procreative process even if the woman is not prepared to be a mother either physically or emotionally. While we do all we can to limit procreative activities to those who are prepared to be parents, we acknowledge that not all are obedient, and an even greater number are not members of our faith and may misuse their bodies’ sacred procreative abilities in ignorance.
Motherhood is a sacred and divine role. It must be voluntarily chosen, even actively pursued, in the same way we expect men to make themselves worthy of receiving the priesthood. We would not try to coerce any woman to be a mother before she is ready any more than we would coerce a man to receive the priesthood before he is prepared. We teach, we support, and we hope, but we do not coerce.
To those women who are pregnant and who, after sincere prayer, have realized that they are not ready to pay the physical, emotional, spiritual and economic price of pregnancy and childbirth, we say that God is not angry with you. Jesus Christ himself said, “Wo unto them that are with child, and unto them that give suck in those days!” (Matthew 24:19; JSM 1:16). He knew that these latter days before his Second Coming would be especially difficult for pregnant women.
Surely God understands the pain and fear of being with child during times of tribulation. Further, the Church of Jesus Christ embraces all knowledge revealed by our Heavenly Father, including the miraculous advances in medical science. We would never say that a woman must forego medical help simply because it wasn’t available in scriptural times.
In his infinite wisdom and love, God treats an abortion the same way he treats a child who is miscarried or stillborn without ever drawing breath.
We do not know exactly when the spirit is sent to the womb. However, if an abortion takes place before a soul is sent to a womb, then we can rejoice to know that a child has avoided a difficult start in life. “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). Children are entitled my brothers and sisters. Surely none of us want a baby to be born to a mother who either cannot or will not welcome that baby. Adoption or abortion are both ways by which our Father in Heaven can redirect a soul to a loving family that is better prepared to rear a child.
If an abortion takes place after a soul is sent to a womb, then this is no different than if a young child dies before the age of accountability. As saddened as we are at death, we also rejoice to know that this individual was so valiant in the pre-existence that he or she did not need to be tested in mortality. Heavenly Father in his eternal wisdom, knowing that the mother would terminate the pregnancy, chose to send a soul so righteous that their time in mortality could be measured in only weeks or months, before being “saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven” (D&C 137:10).
Jehovah told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.” (Jeremiah 1:5). Because Jeremiah had a special mission on this earth, Heavenly Father sent Jeremiah to the right mother and the right place. Jeremiah was not sent to a mother who would die in childbirth, her baby still unborn. Jeremiah was not sent to a city that would be swept with a pestilence that would cause him to die an untimely death as a young child. Those who teach that Heavenly Father’s plan for an individual could be thwarted by either miscarriage or abortion doubt his wisdom and foreknowledge.
My dear brothers and sisters, motherhood is one of God’s greatest blessings. A pregnancy is not a punishment or a consequence, a threat to hold over a woman’s head to deter her from breaking God’s law of chastity. Motherhood is a privilege and an honor, and as such, we honor women and respect their choices about when they become mothers. May we extend charity and acceptance to all women, regardless of their circumstances and their choices.
Questions:
- Does the doctrine of the pre-existence affect your opinions about abortion?
- Do you believe an abortion affects a soul’s fate differently than a miscarriage does?
- Should we blame the whole problem on God for the design flaw of being fertile before being ready to be a parent?
Wheat & Tares 
Mormons are only pro choice when it involves their choice. Not someone else’s. That is what makes them perfect Republicans.
“If an abortion takes place after a soul is sent to a womb, then this is no different than if a young child dies before the age of accountability. As saddened as we are at death, we also rejoice to know that this individual was so valiant in the pre-existence that he or she did not need to be tested in mortality.”
By that logic, it would be okay for a parent to kill their child anytime before the age of 8. After all, “Heavenly Father in his eternal wisdom, knowing that the mother would [kill the child], chose to send a soul so righteous that their time in mortality could be measured in only weeks or months [or years], before being ‘saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven’ (D&C 137:10).”
While that might be good for the child’s soul, it would still be considered murder with regards to the parent’s actions. With a miscarriage or stillborn child, we generally assume that the parents didn’t choose for it to happen (and leave it for God to judge if He has information we don’t).
The doctrine of the pre-existence only supports a pro-choice position if you forget that there are at least 2 souls involved. Your arguments only address the fate of 1 of the souls.
According to scripture, God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. AND THEN breathed the breath of life into him.
So according to that, life begins when you start to breathe.
I think it’s politics and a consistently pro-natalist LDS policy that drives LDS opposition to abortion, not theology. LDS theology is skin deep. It’s fun to talk about but it never really steers the ship. It’s malleable enough that no LDS leader is ever really constrained by LDS theology. The organizational purpose of LDS theology is to maximize leadership discretion, not guide or limit LDS thinking about this or that doctrine or practice.
With regards to the soul of the child, I do think the miscarriage teachings are applicable to abortion. If the soul had entered the body, I’d always been taught that a miscarriage was (to put it crudely) “whoops, try again later”. If we follow the Saturday’s Warrior theology of families arranged in the premortal world, agency still allows pregnancies not to happen. Those children would then go to another family, not be told “sorry, Jack and Jill never got together so you don’t get a body”. The souls of the unborn are fine and will get their bodies eventually.
The parents, however, have more difficult choices to make. Like Observer mentions, I ought not slaughter my seven year olds to save them from sinning later. Sure, they’d be saved, but I’d be in trouble. While an abortion decision is a serious decision, it can be the best option in a difficult circumstance. I absolutely do not believe mifepristone and misoprostol are equivalent to killing a seven year old.
For me your line of thought is flawed. Motherhood is not equivalent to the priesthood. Motherhood is equivalent to Fatherhood. Priesthood is the authority to make decisions in the church. Currently the line of thought in leadership is that women hold priesthood authority, even if they do not officially receive it (or excercise final decision making in the church). We will see how this line of thought regarding women and the priesthood evolves.
Men shouldn’t be required to be fathers before they are ready either. But often they are required to pay child support even at young ages, even if they try to escape this obligation. As a child support enforcement officer I have often heard them complain about the woman’s failure to get an abortion, so they wouldn’t have to be a father.
Your line of reasoning completely misses the partnership that should exist between men and women in raising their children and making important decisions about forming a family. It also misses the partnership that should exist between men and women in leading the church.
The church has falsely conflated motherhood as some how being equal to the priesthood. It isn’t. Parenthood and the authority to lead the church are two separate different things. Conflating these topics puts the rest of your argument on shaky ground.
I admire your willingness to explore this controversial topic openly and honestly. Thank you for also giving me a forum to respond openly and honestly.
As a footnote, Dave B, your observation on LDS theology in general is dead center.
My understanding is that, according to LDS doctrine, if a fetus is terminated that ‘life” will go to another family…a family that presumedly wants this life more than the woman who terminated it. That seems like a win for the child. So it really isn’t “murder” as much as it is a “transfer” of the life.
I’m not sure I see how abortion is as bad as TBMs say it is (i.e., murder). It’s not that I take abortion lightly. I think it can be devastating for all involved and my greatest joy in life is my four kids (adults now). But shouldn’t TBMs be happy that aborted fetuses are going to more worthy families? Or do I have my doctrine wrong?
josh h:
Thank you. This is how I understand it as well. When I’ve tried to calmly explain this to TBM’s, they look at me like I just spouted a third eye. They don’t see it this way. And they won’t help me understand why not.
“My understanding is that, according to LDS doctrine, if a fetus is terminated that ‘life” will go to another family…a family that presumedly wants this life more than the woman who terminated it.”
I would love to see a doctrinal source for that. The only real doctrinal statement I’ve seen is that we don’t know when the spirit enters the body, which means that anything beyond that is speculation.
I feel like this post is an attempt to speak to anti-abortion members of the church using language that they often employ. The parallel between motherhood and priesthood. The infants that don’t need a full mortal experience. I think these are bad arguments when made in other contexts, because they are bad arguments. Employing them in a better cause still leaves them as bad arguments.
Comparing motherhood to priesthood is demeaning of just about everybody. It demeans women because while men can be priesthood holders *and* fathers, women can only be mothers. But it also demeans men because it teaches that fatherhood is so unimportant to men that need priesthood to give their lives meaning. And, it’s demeaning to those without children (for whatever reason) that they are less than their procreating peers. Literally everyone loses when we talk this way. Parenthood is a wonderful and challenging act to participate in. Some of us will experience it, some of us won’t. It is not the only wonderful and challenging event in our lives, and it is not the one, true test of adulthood.
Infants that die moments after birth because they “didn’t need to be tested” or other similar explanations is perhaps my least favorite nuance of LDS plan of salvation theology. It may be of comfort for some grieving parents, but to me it opens a whole mess of questions without satisfactory answers. If Michael still needed to be tested on earth for 900 years, what did they do in the pre-existence to have achieved a perfect score on the “pre-test”? Having never reached the age of accountability, did they lead a perfect life? How does the atonement apply to those individuals? For a church that so often places so much emphasis on the importance that a 70 year stretch of time has on our infinite eternal existence it is strange to me that for some people we claim that we I find this teaching as it is often applied to children ages 0-7 problematic, and extending it backwards by a minute, a week, a trimester or a full 9 months doesn’t change any of that, it just changes the number of souls that fit in this category.
Thanks for the thoughtful and calm comments. I appreciate W&T’s ability to host a civil discussion on difficult topics.
The goal of this post is to show that our theology has room for pro-choice too. The debate has gotten so polarized that it might feel difficult to both believe in Christ and still be pro-choice. These posts are intended to carve out a bit of room for that.
Dave B: Yes, the theology is shallow. Most of the teachings are driven by emotion.
lws329: I agree with you that motherhood and priesthood are not equivalent. I was writing in “Gen Conf voice” for a rhetorical device, and priesthood and motherhood get compared by Church leaders. I didn’t say priesthood and motherhood are equivalent – just that both roles should be deliberately chosen. The Church believes both roles are important and talks about both roles a lot, and that’s the commonality I needed for this post.
Observer: Regarding the comments about an abortion after a soul has been sent. Church leaders say they don’t know when a soul enters the body. So an LDS person can believe that the soul doesn’t enter the body until the first breath (as AW points out), or they can believe that the soul is sent long before birth. It’s a religious question. You can be a faithful Christian and believe the soul doesn’t enter the body until after the first breath. You can be a faithful Christian and believe otherwise. The point of the paragraph you quoted is to show that the soul is fine, regardless of the timing, so we don’t need a religious crusade to save them. Killing a 7-year-old child is murder because there is no religious belief that a 7-year-old doesn’t yet have a soul. That’s the difference between having an abortion and killing your 7-year-old. Saying there are 2 souls involved presumes that your religious belief is fact and should be enforced by state law. If you believe the fetus has a soul, then by all means, you should never have an abortion. Being pro-choice means a woman should never be compelled to abort. But laws shouldn’t force that religious belief on others who don’t believe there are 2 souls involved.
DaveW: “I feel like this post is an attempt to speak to anti-abortion members of the church using language that they often employ.” Yes, you’re right, that’s what I was doing. I’m giving people some room so that people can see that it’s okay to be pro-choice and religious. You and lws329 are right that motherhood and priesthood are not equivalent, but they are both important roles emphasized by the Church. Maybe think of it that way? Both roles should be chosen because both are important, not because they’re equivalent.
I don’t have any reply to your concern about the teaching that some souls don’t need to be tested. The Church teaches that, and I’m not going to defend it or attack it because I don’t really have a strong opinion about it one way or the other.
Abortion is often an economic issue. The economic cost to the mother, or the economic cost to society, contributes to the decision. Good Christians are often willing to condemn abortion, but are not willing to combine their money to support the impoverished mother—instead they condemn her morality. Other Good Christians are willing to support the mother monetarily, but only in the case that the child is signed off in adoption to a “good Christian family,” making her a kind of surrogate. The economic system that creates this scenario is at fault. If we challenge the issue of abortion by blaming pro-life, or pro-choice, we are merely demanding society to comply with the order of economy—which is patently corrupt. Jesus taught otherwise. He challenged the economic system and the lawmakers and the enforcers.
Any pro-life vs. pro-choice discussion occurs as a response which aims to displace mercy with judgment, and attempts to blame one side or another. If pregnant women were subsidized for being pregnant—regardless of the circumstances—abortion would be the exceptional circumstance in society, and mercy would extend to every circumstance. If we were taught properly how the Womb represents the sacred Gateway into this “First Estate,” we would likely reconsider our reaction to the metaphysical impact of pregnancy and childbirth.
Until Good Christians are willing to subsidize pregnancy—all pregnancy—and be Our Sister’s Keepers—we are unfit to speak about it. All economy is the Lord’s handiwork, and our way of doing economy, at present, refuses to monetarily support the Lord’s plan of opening the Gateway to the First Estate.
“Regarding the comments about an abortion after a soul has been sent. Church leaders say they don’t know when a soul enters the body. So an LDS person can believe that the soul doesn’t enter the body until the first breath (as AW points out), or they can believe that the soul is sent long before birth. It’s a religious question. You can be a faithful Christian and believe the soul doesn’t enter the body until after the first breath. You can be a faithful Christian and believe otherwise. The point of the paragraph you quoted is to show that the soul is fine, regardless of the timing, so we don’t need a religious crusade to save them. Killing a 7-year-old child is murder because there is no religious belief that a 7-year-old doesn’t yet have a soul. That’s the difference between having an abortion and killing your 7-year-old. Saying there are 2 souls involved presumes that your religious belief is fact and should be enforced by state law. If you believe the fetus has a soul, then by all means, you should never have an abortion. Being pro-choice means a woman should never be compelled to abort. But laws shouldn’t force that religious belief on others who don’t believe there are 2 souls involved.”
You are missing the logical flaw in your argument. Let me try to clarify.
To restate your argument (please correct me if I’m off), if you believe that an unborn baby has (or may have) a soul*, then if it is aborted then the baby’s soul is fine because it is below the age of accountability and therefore gains immediate entrance into the celestial kingdom.
But, to take that to a logical conclusion, if you believe that an unborn baby has a soul, then aborting that baby is choosing to kill that soul. The willful killing of a soul, with some exceptions such as defense of self/family (see Alma 43:47) or when directly commanded to do so (see Nephi and Laban), is a grievous sin (see Exodus 20:13).
Saying we should rejoice because the aborted baby is in the celestial kingdom ignores the fact that it requires you to believe that baby had a soul, which means that the mother chose to commit the grievous sin of murder. You can’t have it both ways and say that we should rejoice for the baby being in the celestial kingdom without also condemning the mother at the same time. The two are inextricably connected. If you are comforted about the baby, you should also be horrified at the mother as a murderer.
Moreover, that logic holds for any point after the spirit and body are united and before the age of accountability. Assuming the baby has a soul, the logic is the same whether it’s before they are born or after they are born.
As a side note, if you define the moment a baby takes its first breath as when it has a soul, then logically you are arguing that it is acceptable to smother the baby to death in the time between birth and that first breath.
There may be reasonable pro-choice doctrinal arguments, but D&C 137:10 isn’t one of them.
* Doctrinally speaking, a soul is a spirit and a body, per D&C 88:15. so once the spirit enters the body, the baby is a soul as opposed to having a soul.
I’m reluctant to wade into this but here goes.
-As far as LDS doctrine, I agree (times a million) with those who have noted that our theology is shifting and shallow. So I put very little weight on it. That said, I think it has been abundantly clear that a baby isn’t a person till its born (hence all of the pain women have suffered from miscarriages and stillborns), so LDS theology shouldn’t have a problem with abortion. (Another interesting factoid: if you have a baby by surrogate, but it’s 100% fully your biological baby, the baby has to be sealed to you as if it were adopted!!!!). That also says that according to our theology, something really significant happens at birth that doesn’t happen before birth.
-Overall, the more I think about this and listen to arguments on BOTH sides, what I come to is this: Does a fetus have absolutely zero interests? No. Does a women have absolutely no interests that would prevail over a fetus? No. I think there is a sliding scale where the more developed a fetus becomes, the stronger the interest of the fetus and then of course the stronger the woman’s interest needs to be to countervail this.
I think a lot of people in their gut agree with this. Many would agree that there is a difference between a just-fertilized clump of cells and a 30-week fetus capable of surviving outside the womb (certainly anyone who supports in vitro fertilization, or opposes counting in utero children as children for tax purposes, etc. would have to agree with this). But when we try to put a scientific explanation, or a theological explanation, for what the difference is and where the “line” is, we fail. It’s hard to pinpoint. That doesn’t mean it’s not the right approach. This are major, complicated questions about the very nature of life and existence.
The fact that the question is so complicated to me requires that we leave those decisions up to the woman, the father (if he is involved), and medical providers. Only they will be in a position to really weigh all of the factors and make the right choice. The state should not have the right to commandeer a woman’s body because it’s made a different judgment call about when life begins.
If we are going to insist on legislating (I don’t think we should because I don’t think a legislature is competent to address an issue this complex, let alone a legislature made up mostly of men), I actually think in that sense Roe got it right. Pre-viability, I think a woman’s interests in bodily autonomy outweigh a clump of cells and abortions should be safe, legal, and freely available. Post-viability, interests may start to shift and there’s where you’ll see more limitations like life / health of the mother, rape, incest, etc. This is actually the way many other developed countries treat abortion because it hasn’t be politicized by the Christian right as it has here.
Just a few quick points. First, as to the equivalent between priesthood and motherhood, our current leaders do seem to believe that neither one requires personal choice and coercion is fine; however, this doesn’t have a basis in theology, so carry on.
Next point, the Church’s view of stillborn children indicates that they do not consider them to have a soul. Unlike Catholicism, they are not officially recorded through the Mormon equivalent of blessing & name. That’s a point in favor of ensoulment happening pretty late stage. Additionally, the BOM has Jesus appearing in Spirit to the prophet Nephi the night before his birth, announcing that he will be born on the morrow. That’s a second point in favor of late ensoulment. Both of these are uniquely Mormon points.
The next point I will make that fetuses are not ensouled (and here I’m relying on my Mormon belief in a pre-existence for sure), is a simple math question. A woman can have up to nine abortions or miscarriages (theoretically) during the same amount of time she can give birth to one live child, or perhaps 6 or 7 as a live child can be viable as early as 7 months with medical intervention. Those fetuses can’t be the actual same thing as a living, born child. If they were, and our only goal (which I’ve heard preached many times) is to create bodies for spirits, then we should be encouraging miscarriage / abortion to maximize ensoulment, even if it’s not much of a life of opportunity and testing, right? And frankly, that’s bonkers.
Dave B. hits the nail on the head. Our theology is only skindeep, and mostly based on emotion (mixed with a serious lack of empathy for women).
Re: the question of when a spirit enters the fetus/body of a baby, wouldn’t it be great if we had a Prophet who could ask God for the answer, and then base our theology around that answer instead of “feelings”?
Elisa: You summarized my personal opinion about the whole debate with this line. “The fact that the question is so complicated to me requires that we leave those decisions up to the woman, the father (if he is involved), and medical providers.”
Angela – Good points and well-stated.
Observer – let me try again too. You can’t kill a soul. If the fetus already has a soul, then that soul is saved, not killed, by abortion. The mother’s judgment is up to God. God decides whether or not she committed a sin. I don’t believe there’s any comparison between an abortion and Nephi killing Laban, although I did read several stories in the SL Trib about LDS women who had prayed about having an abortion and felt that God approved of their decision to terminate a pregnancy.
You use the word “logic” twice to lead to horrible conclusions. “Logically” a fetus in utero with a soul is no different than a 7-year-old. “Logically” you can smother a newborn before it draws a breath. Don’t do logical extremes; they’re extremely illogical and don’t help the discussion at all. If we take your argument to a logical extreme, than a pregnant teenager who gets an abortion because she’s afraid her father will kill her boyfriend is morally identical to a serial-killer who targets 7-year-olds.
Here’s the situation the “soul is saved” is meant to address. An atheist you’ve never met is pregnant. She doesn’t believe in souls, or heaven and hell. She has an abortion. If you’re worried about the fate of the aborted fetus, you can rest easy knowing that God is being kind and merciful in the possibility that the fetus had a soul, which neither you nor anyone else can know for certain. We don’t need to demonize the pregnant atheist as a murderer and we don’t need to pass laws forcing her to obey anyone’s religious beliefs.
If we believe that young children that die; were so righteous that they don’t need to stay and be tested, what does it say about RMN needing to be tested for 98 years. He must be terribly embarrased. Or me for 74.
Someone above questions what happens in the rest of the world. Where I live we do not have pro life or pro choice. Those are political terms. Abortion is not a political issue. We have no republicans.
Abortion is legal up until 22 weeks for a woman in consultation with her doctor. After 22 weeks, a second doctor needs to be consulted.. Universal healthcare covers birth control, and the abortion if required. We have 18 weeks paid parental leave. Which may increase to 24 weeks shortly. This can be divided between the parents.
So in Australia abortion is free and readily available. But the rate of abortions is lower than USA, and reducing.
More than 50% of abortions are medical ( v surgical), 70% by 9 weeks, 90% by 13 weeks, 99% by 22 weeks.
Up to 50% of pregnancies are ended by miscarriage, or still birth, for older women, 20% for young women.
20% of pregnancies are ended by abortion.
Geoff-Aus, thanks for your input. I wish we could get politics out of healthcare entirely in the USA. It would be so much better if we stopped politicizing personal healthcare decisions, like abortion, transgender issues, even vaccines. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to pass a constitutional amendment saying no law can either mandate or prohibit personal health care. I’m sure there are some pitfalls that I haven’t thought of, but mostly I wish politicians would leave peoples’ bodies alone.
@Observer, if you’re able to sort this out logically, then you’re a lot smarter than I am. For example, If a mother kills her baby, thus ensuring the baby’s place in the celestial kingdom but at the cost of the mother being consigned to the telestial, wouldn’t that be considered a supremely selfless act? Wouldn’t this sacrifice, which would be infinitely greater than merely giving up one’s mortal life, qualify the mother for the celestial kingdom? But then it wouldn’t be a sacrifice, and the mother would consequently be telestial-bound. How do you resolve this paradox?
Janey,
I’m not taking logical extremes here. It’s a simple, logical connection, not an extreme one. You simply can’t have it both ways. If the baby is/has a soul, then the mother’s choice to kill* it is a horrible act of murder. It’s not in some quantum mechanical state like Schrodinger’s cat, where the baby has a soul for purposes of its own salvation, but at the same time does not have a soul for purposes of the mother’s salvation. It’s a simple if-then statement. (Note: that doesn’t say that the baby actual is/has a soul, it simple points out that if it has one, then the mother’s actions a abhorrent.)
This is not to say that I believe abortion to be murder because unborn babies have souls. I am analyzing your argument and showing its inconsistencies. As I said before, there may be reasonable pro-choice doctrinal arguments, but D&C 137:10 isn’t one of them. That was a poor argument, and that is all that I was calling out.
My personal view is a lot more complex, and explicitly acknowledges what we know and don’t know. I am an engineer by training and by trade. One of the key things that I’ve learned through that training is that nature does not work in step functions. (The unit step function is generally defined as u(t)={0, t=0}. Essentially, at t=0, the value instantaneously changes from 0 to 1 without passing through any intermediary values.) You can approximate a step function through various means, but never duplicate it. (Wikipedia has an excellent article on it, if you take the time to read it through.)
What does that have to do with abortion? Well, even though we don’t have a definitive answer about when the spirit enters the body**, we do know the boundaries of the question. On the early end, we know that the moment before conception, the spirit cannot have entered the body because there is no body. On the later end, we know that the moment after birth the spirit has definitely entered the body. knowing that it is an independent living creature at that point. Since nature doesn’t work in step functions (see above), there must be a transition state somewhere between those two extremes. Other milestones can be examined to bring in those boundaries, but all that does is reduce the window for that transition state.
For example, my sister’s children were both born months premature via C-section due to medical issues. Did that surgical procedure suddenly grant them their spirits? Or were their spirits already in their bodies at that time? Again, because nature doesn’t use step functions that moves the later boundary earlier (likely to the point of viability). On the opposite extreme (after conception), does the spirit enter the body immediately after the sperm fertilizes the egg? Again, nature doesn’t use step functions, so likely not. At implantation? Heartbeat? Some other milestone? I can’t answer that, but each later milestone makes it more and more likely that the spirit has transitioned into the body (in whole or in significant part). There has to be a point where we err on the side of caution and reject the reasonable possibility of it being murder, even if we are not sure if it is.
* Technically from a doctrinal standpoint, a soul can be killed, as death is the separation of the body and the spirit. It is just that in the Resurrection, they will be reunited and made immortal.
** My parents like to tell of a professor who spoke on this subject, saying that some say conception, others say at birth, but the truth is after grad school, if ever.
Observer: I think you are overlooking the other legal precedent, that pre-viability, the dependent one does not have the same rights as the “host.” We don’t compel organ donorship. We likewise would not compel a person to physically sustain the life of another with their body, even if both lives had a soul / spirit (which is not settled in the case of a fetus). This is why nearly every rational citizen agrees that viability matters in legislating abortion. If a fetus is viable, it cannot / should not be aborted unless severe birth defects or life of the mother come into play.
Angela,
What does legal precedent have to do with LDS doctrinal teachings? This post and the discussion surrounding it are focused on whether LDS doctrine supports a pro-choice position, and my responses were written in that context. Doctrine and legality are orthogonal topics. Just because something is legal (for example, drinking or smoking) doesn’t mean that it is permitted by doctrine (for example, the Word of Wisdom).
If you want to shift the discussion to a legal footing instead, then that is a completely different discussion and context. You can’t claim I am overlooking something that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
In fact, my last comment specifically called out viability as a likely point at which the spirit has entered the body, and then specifically disclaimed definitive knowledge of anything earlier. I spoke only about the boundaries of when it might happen, and said that at some point between implantation or the existence of a heartbeat and viability it is reasonable to err on the side of caution. I did not state what that point is because, as I said earlier in my comment, we don’t know. We only know the boundaries of our ignorance.
Angela C.
As the mother of a son who was born with severe birth defects, I want you to know that the lives of disabled people are just as valuable and worth living as the lives of more physically perfect people. I was encouraged to abort my son and I refused. He is the light of my life and every struggle with his numerous and serious defects has been worth it. He has a good life, though his needs are different.
Over 60 percent of abortions happen to babies with disabilities or defects. This is a form of eugenics. This is symptomatic of a society that devalues people with disabilities and discriminates against them at every turn. They are people too, even if their lives are different than what you have experienced and see as acceptable. If we even pretend to be Christ like and exercise charity, we should be willing to serve people with disabilities, and accommodate and include them in our society. The lowest level of this would be holding back and allowing them to be born and survive if their defects allow it.
Observer,
Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree, because I don’t understand the rigidity of your position. If a woman doesn’t believe in souls (that pregnant atheist in my previous hypothetical), then she isn’t a murderer. There isn’t an objective Truth of when the soul inhabits the body. It’s all religious belief (or atheist belief). It is a Schrodinger’s cat belief because there is no objective truth on this question. Some people say yes; some people say no and nobody can prove the other right or wrong. So yes, I can have it both ways. If the fetus has a soul, and the mother doesn’t believe in souls or believes there is no soul yet, then she can abort the fetus without having the intent to commit murder, so she isn’t guilty of murder. God saves the fetus’s soul, and judges the mother according to the knowledge and beliefs that she had. The purpose of my argument was to say that God is taking care of the fetus/soul regardless of what people believe, and they can leave judgment of the mother up to God. I’m using soul to mean spirit, so maybe that’s the confusion.
Edit – okay, I think I get where you’re coming from. You’re echoing the pro-lifers who believe there is definitely a soul, and so abortion is definitely murder. I’m trying to explain that LDS don’t know if there’s a soul yet, and that’s why I can have it both ways. Elder Anderson’s Gen Conf quote above says we don’t know when the soul/spirit enters the body. If we don’t know about the soul, then we can say D&C 137:10 applies (if necessary) AND the mother can be innocent of murder, because even if the fetus had a soul already, she didn’t know that. You have to know what you’re doing in order to be guilty.
Observer, If you connect your thoughts about viability, with the actual age of abortion, you will see there isn’t a problem.
The age of viability is at least 24. Women supported in their choices, already decide.
More than 50% of abortions are medical ( v surgical), 70% by 9 weeks, 90% by 13 weeks, 99% by 22 weeks.
Up to 50% of pregnancies are ended by miscarriage, or still birth, for older women, 20% for young women.
20% of pregnancies are ended by abortion.
So 99% of abortions are completed before the age of viability. The 1% are where the health of foetus or mother are concerned. There are more miscarriages than chosen abortions. So there should be no concern about the reality of abortion. Women supported in their choice have already got it right.
The problem arises when extreme right wing politics (whether in the church) or the rest of America want to impose their definitians (life begins at conception) on women who are already doing it well.
If they applied their efforts to supporting the women, they could reduce the number of abortions by improving sex education, and affordable birth control. There are countries where the number of abortions are a third Americas.
Janey,
You are obviously missing my point. I am strictly speaking about your logical argument from the post that “If an abortion takes place after a soul is sent to a womb, then this is no different than if a young child dies before the age of accountability.” It is a strict conditional of the if-then form. As the saying goes, a false if proves anything (because you only actually get to the then part once you establish the first part is true). This is logic and argumentation 101.
The same principle applies in programming. It doesn’t matter what the code after your IF statement is if the statement is false, because that code will never execute.
I simply took the conditional that you provided and accepted it as true to examine the logical consequences of that conditional (which is how you evaluate the quality of an argument). If an abortion takes place after a soul is sent to a womb, then yes, the child would be saved in the celestial kingdom, per D&C 137. However, the additional consequences of that same if being true are that the mother then has shed innocent blood by choosing for that child to die. That consequence is tied to the same “if” that you provided, and completely undercuts your argument.
That criticism does not mean that I necessarily am advocating that there is definitely a soul. I’ve already specifically stated my personal views on that question. But your argument is a bad argument, because you are trying to pull a Schrodinger’s cat here, where you are picking while ignoring that one consequence is inextricably tied to the other because they are based on the same “if” statement. Otherwise you are conducting circular reasoning, by assuming the outcome you want: “If there’s a soul, then it would go to the celestial kingdom, but there isn’t a soul so the mother didn’t do anything wrong”. To use programming notation to clarify:
if (there is a soul in the womb when the abortion happens) then
{
the baby will go to the celestial kingdom
the mother committed murder
}
else
{
there was no baby
the mother did nothing wrong
}
We may not know whether (there is a soul in the womb when the abortion happens) = TRUE, but you can’t pick one outcome from the “then” statement and one from the “else” statement. That’s not how logic works. The if statement is either TRUE or FALSE, in which case the entire “then” statement or “else” statement will execute, respectively.
Again, as I said before, there may be reasonable pro-choice doctrinal arguments, but D&C 137:10 isn’t one of them. That was a bad argument, plain and simple.
@lws329, I imagine you felt strongly about not terminating your pregnancy. I think that’s a wonderful choice.
I think we also need to hold space for the woman who feels strongly that she *should* terminate a pregnancy.
The answer to your concern is to make services available for disabled people and their families so that women will feel supported to choose to keep a pregnancy. Not to force them to.
My understanding of the church definition of life (for sealings, etc.) is that the child has to breathe. There is nothing that says miscarriages or other losses have had their chance. My belief always was that if they didn’t breathe, they went back in line for another chance at a body. Stillborn children are not supposed to be sealed and, of course, need no other ordinances. I have seen no clarification about whether they may come again later to the same family or go somewhere else. A background corrollary (not documented) for me has always been that if the line is long enough, they may be born in the millennium (possibly balancing being sent back in line). So equating abortion with murder from an LDS perspective has never seemed accurate to me.
Elisa, you might do well to reread my comment. I did not address force, or legality, or what is the best way to deal with mothers who asked for an abortion in their own desperate circumstances. Why did I not address it? Humbly, I really don’t have the answers to those questions. I know abortion is a necessary medical procedure that needs to be legal without doctors having to slow down, and wade into bureaucracy before they provide it, because it is often a necessary solution to dangerous medical gynecological situations women experience.
But I also know from raising children with significant disabilities that this issue of killing babies that are disabled is a very concerning one. Your mention of defects being a reason to terminate the fetus, requires that I speak up for the lives of disabled infants and people. Why? I want you and all within the reach of my voice to hear my testimony that fetuses and people with defects and disabilities are no more deserving of being killed than you are or I am. It should not be an acceptable excuse to end a pregnancy.
Should the government or mothers and doctors figure this issue out? While I don’t entirely know that government should have NO involvement in protecting people with defects, I lean strongly towards educating both mothers and doctors on the value and civil rights of people with defects. In my opinion, in the end, they will rightly, and necessarily be the ones responsible for this decision.
lws- where are you drawing the line? You say you are speaking for the disabled. How many millions are the people to spend to save them? How much pain and suffering is required by the individual? Both disabled and family?
Modern medicine can prolong life indefinitely. We can even save the stillborn if we find them early enough.
So please, speak up for them. Enlighten us on how much all out effort we must do to prolong life.
You chose to do what you did and you are more than willing to force another to make the same choice?
Wow! Once again you attributed all kinds of things I didn’t mean or say to my comment. You are apparently unwilling to hear my meaning.
I hear you that you are angry right now about legal limitations on abortion. Limitations on abortion were neither the focus or meaning of my comments or the focus of the discussion of this forum. I believe responding further with someone who cannot hear and understand the response is counterproductive.
I do hear your meaning. You are saying, “listen to me. Someone should do something. Someone should set limits. But not me.”
That’s the wow.
Do you remember Terry Schaivo? Medicine can keep a body alive indefinitely. There is a limit. And that limitust be up to the person directly involved. Therefore, creating laws, create force. And it’s all? Or nothing? Or in between?
You speak loud. I heard. But you don’t like others decisions. So you say, do something about it. Others should make the same decisions I have made.
Do you think these decisions are made lightly? Honestly? It quite certainly sounds like you do. Like it’s pure whimsy. Just a quick solution to some bad news.
What if your insurance had said no? Or the government had said no? Or your other family had said no? Not everyone has the same resources as you. Does THAT matter?
The previous law allowed a person to make a decision. The new law does not.
It is important to remember that then-Elder Russell M Nelson stated in general conference in the early 1980’s that abortion is *not* murder. This has important implications for church members. Church policy on abortion has traditionally been technically pro-choice as the church has always had provisions for abortion in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and has more recently added provisions for serious health of the mother and certain fetal abnormalities.
The church has never required that a rape be reported to authorities in order for a church member to obtain abortion care.
Many within the church support abortion laws that are more restrictive than the church itself, so deeply concerning if we care about women who carry the heavier load with childbearing.
Abortion laws are a poor method of reducing abortion numbers. Many other policies work more effectively to reduce abortion numbers–sex education, availability of birth control, and expanding on what Elisa mentioned, resources and services “so that women will feel supported to choose to keep a pregnancy.”
Abortion laws mainly lead to dangerous abortions–they do not necessarily reduce numbers of abortions. Keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare is a good goal.
lws- you are talking about choices. We all are. I am as well.
For you to emphasize your side of the choice continuum is your right. For me to emphasize mine is my right. You’re very emotional as well. May I not be?
Well… Apparently not.
Your experiences give your opinion weight. But not a bully pulpit.
matiw- in college I read the cider house rules in order to gain some fictional yet reality based perspective. This issue isn’t black and white. It’s nuanced and needs balance. But it is the woman’s decision.
I have never liked abortion in any form. But I don’t like forced decisions even more. It’s absolutely wrong.
Persuasion is my choice. Not force. Provide options. Provide support. Don’t mandate it.
A woman who is pregnant for nine months experiences a higher risk of dying during that time than a police officer experiences in a given nine month period.
Pregnancy carries significant dangers for the pregnant woman. Abortion must consider this risk.
Fathers are not required to donate a kidney, or even just blood, to sustain the life of any child they have helped create–the disparity within the law causes me to wonder if abortion laws are not really about preserving life.
At a level, strict anti-abortion laws appear to consider women as being disposable. Property. Replaceable by a second wife if a young mother dies due to pregnancy complications.
It’s a myth that women obtain abortions frivolously. In most cases it is a difficult and heart-wrenching decision arrived at after seeing no other options.
I want to add, I had no intention to bully you. I am sorry it came across that way. But I ask you, I am a woman just like the women you defend. Could you please take my word for it, that you aren’t understanding my comments, and that I have no way to make you understand.
Me saying this isn’t bullying you. But your refusing to accept that you haven’t understood, and I can’t make you understand? Please at least give me the benefit of the doubt you would give to woman who chooses abortion.
lws- my apologies. Apparently in this day and age bully pulpit has lost its broader meaning. So I recant.
So here is my affirmation to you. You are a woman. You have a child with severe special needs. You have chosen to birth and raise that child. You find meaning and value in doing so. You want others to hear that you are and have done these things.
Now. I hear you. I understand you. My best friend in the whole world has a special needs daughter. He went from being a Healthcare minimalist to relying on it intensely. I would not even dream of saying he should have aborted his daughter. She is lovely. Expensive, but lovely.
Nor have I, nor would I have ever had the gall to say you should have either.
But if either my best friend or you, had made that decision… It’s your choice. I won’t step into it. I balk at the idea.
So I still misunderstand you, I guess. I still don’t see your side, I guess. My life experiences don’t equate to your life experiences, I guess.
Again. My apologies.
lws329
I appreciate your perspective. It really is important to our discussion as well as to the creation of good policy. Raising a child with a serious disability is hard in ways the uninitiated cannot begin to imagine. At the same time, not all disabilities are equal. Every family has differing levels of resources to call upon in raising a child with a serious disability. It is valiant of you to raise your child in a loving and caring home and I truly, truly admire you–I suspect the challenges have been real but also worthwhile. I also hope that we will all respect each family’s right to privately consider their situation and resources when faced with the prospect of a pregnancy where a disabling condition is evident, and respect whatever decision they come to with regards to continuing the pregnancy.
And I hope we will all advocate for better resources and services for individuals with disabilities and their families. I do suspect that doing so will actually work to decrease the numbers of abortions, but even if it doesn’t, it’s the right thing for us to do as a society and the relief of suffering will be immense.
And again, my admiration for you and what you are doing is deep. I’m sending internet-comment hugs your way–my best to you and your family.
Iws329: A woman choosing to continue a pregnancy with a severely disabled child is of course a respectable choice. But that’s only because it’s her choice to make. Yes, it’s important that any parent evaluate (with medical advice) the quality of life issues related to the disability. Some disabilities mean a life of expense and pain and full-time caregiving that may not be tenable given our current infrastructure for parental help in this country (which is certainly an area for policy improvement). I had club feet as a baby. Nobody out there is suggesting that such a minimal disability is on par with encephalitis of the brain. Disabilities vary greatly, as do individual circumstances and choices. When you throw around terms like “killing babies” when what you are referencing is “terminating a pregnancy,” you tip your hand. The entire point of the post was when does ensoulment happen, and all we have are personal opinions on this matter. Is terminating a pregancy just terminating that specific body? (I think so; you may not) If so, does that soul go to another body elsewhere or wait for another body with that same family? (I think the former) Choosing to give birth to someone who is disabled is a noble choice. It’s yours to make in a pro-choice society. It’s not a choice any woman with a wanted pregnancy takes lightly.
Because doctors’ advice varies so much, I think you are right to advocate for the disabled. Some doctors warn you of the most dire possible outcome. Others downplay the risks. In my first pregnancy, I had a serious DVT that was at one point a 50/50 chance I would survive. My doctor said I should seriously consider no further pregnancies, but that it was my choice, and if I chose to have more, she would do her best to ensure my health. We worked together to mitigate the risks, with me self-administering shots twice a day throughout each pregnancy and post-partum, with weekly blood checks at a lab. I’m not sure how I could have done it without good health insurance or if I had had a job that was not flexible. Fortunately, I had those things, and all went well. Neverthless, in my second pregnancy a male radiologist scolded me severely for being pregnant again, as if I was an idiot. “Are you trying to kill yourself?” he said. I said that I was under my doctor’s care, taking every precaution. He treated me like I was completely reckless and too stupid to understand what I was doing, adding that “DVTs are the leading cause of maternal mortality in the western world.” (About 1 in 10 maternal deaths in the US are due to a DVT). I left very shaken up.
Good thing it was my own choice, though. It’s fine to take risks. It’s not fine to have them forced on you because your life literally doesn’t matter to those making the decisions.
Angela C , your comments are very wise. I can see how referring to killing babies could be triggering. I want to clarify that using the phrase terminating a pregnancy may also tip your hand as to how you regard the life of the child.
For me after having 5 children and seeing them jump around in my uterus as early as 8 weeks I simply don’t doubt that this is a baby and a separate life worthy of defending. But the mother also has a life and choices that may rightly be in conflict with the life of the child.
Sometimes people’s needs and rights genuinely conflict. If an abortion is what is necessary that should be faced honestly and courageously, that a child very early in development loses their life. For me at least, rationalizing that, it isn’t a child or doesn’t have a soul, or will get another chance later, is just a way to ease the pain of this essential conflict between the mother’s life and the babies life.
While abortion remains a conflict between two lives, we need to courageously see the conflict, and support women in this difficult situation to be able to make this decision with accurate medical information and access, and support from
their community.
I do not know when ensoulment occurs as a matter of doctrine, but I note that the Savior appeared to Nephi the night before his mortal birth so his own ensoulment probably hadn’t happened yet.
However, I do know two things: first, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to avoid abortion; and second, regarding non-members of the church, that the church has no position regarding abortion legislation.
@ji, the church’s “wink wink” policy is definitely to oppose abortion rights.
“ The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”
Ji wrote (and Angela C wrote something similar):” I note that the Savior appeared to Nephi the night before his mortal birth so his own ensoulment probably hadn’t happened yet.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it was only the “voice of the Lord” that was present, not an actual visitation, and seeing that “Angels . . . speak the words of Christ” (there’s a specific term for this that neither I nor Google seem to remember, one used more in Catholicism than in LDS circles) there’s a very good chance it wasn’t the Savior speaking at all. Additionally, we’re talking about an individual that had the ability to overcome death on His own. I’d imagine He may have had some “pre-birth” privileges that we didn’t have either, but it’s just speculation. I don’t think we can make a direct comparison.
Having said that, I can’t with certainty say when “ensoulment” occurs, but my gut and some teachings, ponderings, and studying both from within and outside the Church leads me to believe it’s sooner, rather than later. But I ultimately don’t know.
Isw329: It sounds like we agree that the mother needs the best information to make the right decision for her and for her (potential) child, and that disability is just a factor to consider, but not a clearcut reason for action. Just a quick point of clarification, the fetus doesn’t move until 12 weeks when it is fully formed (but still very small), and the earliest one can feel movement is between 16 and 20 weeks (the “quickening” in archaic language). If you felt the fetus move at 8 weeks, that is pretty exceptional. The earliest I ever did was around 19-20 weeks. You might see “movement” on an ultrasound, but it’s still floating in a big bag of water, which makes it hard to feel these flutters.
Angela,
It was an 8 week ultrasound where I saw the movement, and indeed developing babies have full arms and legs at that point. My son was doing cartwheels off the sides of the uterus. My husband and I and the OB watched this. My OB had a small ultrasound used at each appointment including the first one. It’s amazing to watch a baby grow. Just as amazing as watching them grow after birth.
I guess I just wasn’t clear it was ultrasound, so you felt you had to fact check me? You’re right you can’t feel it until later, I certainly couldn’t, but I did use the word “saw”. Ultrasound.
A woman made a choice to birth and raise a child with disabilities. She had a choice, and she made her own decision. She will reap any blessings (or consequences) associated with her choice, her decision.
QUESTION 1. Will that woman allow other similarly-situated women who are members of her faith community to also have a choice? Or will she want the faith community to make the choice for her?
QUESTION 2. Will that woman allow other similarly-situated women in her locality who are not in her faith community to also have a choice? Or will she want the civil government to make the choice for her?
Iws329: No, I was just surprised when you said “seeing them jump around” which I took to mean (incorrectly) that you meant visible movement on your abdomen, which is what happened for me at 19-20 weeks, so I looked it up. I just misunderstood your meaning. Sorry!