Thursday, September 10, 2020

Abortion Again

 Once more I will try to explain and persuade. Abortion is a serious, moral wrong when done for selfish reasons, IMO. However, as my Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made it very clear that there is no absolute prohibition of abortion:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."

Is there anything in this official statement that looks like an absolute ban or ban on voting for those who support a woman's right to choose? I don't see it.

And how are the rare exceptions to be determined? Not by a judge in a legal proceeding, not by debates in Congress or the State Legislature. It is a personal, medical, and religious determination to be made, not a political one. The statement ends with this:

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion. 

I don't have to mingle this with scripture or provide much philosophy to trip anybody up. There is absolutely no prohibition to vote for Democrats who support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion!

Here are some studies and reports that show that the provision of birth control options and health care reduce the abortion rate:

National Institutes of Health, U.S. Depart. of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Service, Washington, DC

University School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri

Institute for Health Care Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Brookings Institute, Washington, DC

I know there are studies from organizations disagreeing with these propositions. So, CHOOSE what you want to believe. You have a choice. Women facing difficult circumstances should have a choice too.

In a recent conversation with a conservative friend, it came down to this from him - if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. When women choose to have sex, they should be willing to have a baby not to have an abortion to get rid of it for their own convenience.

Trying to point out that it takes two to tango and what about the man's responsibility because he doesn't suffer any physical risks with pregnancy, the answer came that society should make men responsible to support the baby. I don't disagree with that, but in reality it seems that men can easily escape the responsibilities of fatherhood while a mother cannot escape the responsibilities and risks of a pregnancy even before a baby may be born and the responsibility for its life passed on through adoption or societal support. And I absolutely reject the proposition that women always have sex because they want to.

Women have sex for a lot of reasons, some pleasurably selfish, some not. Rape goes under-reported especially within a marriage or domestic relationship. And where is that line between a woman's choice to engage in sex for love, pleasure, to please a man, or to accommodate, distract, or diffuse a man's desires, frustration, anger, and threats of violence? Sexual relations in every instance and circumstance are very complex. Just as it takes an ecclesiastical leader in LDS decisions to consider an abortion, moral and religious beliefs and practices come into play in every sexual connection -- or not.

It may come down to this. Rather than the idea that if you don't want a baby, don't have sex, what about an idea that women need more power and control over reproduction? Choices should be made available. These function very well in a sacred marriage where sex can be a wholesome, moral experience and children are planned and welcomed. But that is not where all sex happens. Do you want to regulate all forms of sexual behavior? We've had laws against adultery that seem to be fading or at least unenforced. Do we want to go back to the scarlet A? 

Abortion like Adultery starts with an "A."

Are we more concerned about the moral implications of abortion or a woman's sexual behavior? 

Whatever, please consider voting Democratic to give women more options for better health and reproductive behavior to avoid the disfavored option of abortion.

The real reason I ask you to vote Democratic is to remove the power of the most morally corrupt individual ever to inhabit the White House along with the political party that enables him and his family. Please, I beg  you!
Addendum Sept. 28, 2020:
As I have had some comments on this one, I thought I would link to my previous postings on this issue:


  1. You make some good points. However--
    1. I suggest you use the official name of the Church. That way you will look like a believing, practicing member rather an "in-name-only" member.

    2. Agreeing that women may be in circumstances where abortion is not immoral, should people opposed to abortion be forced to pay for all types of abortions as a tax or in an insurance plan? Or should it be voluntary as a donation?

    3. It appears that pro-abortion advocates are not stopping at legalized free abortions for all. Basically, they want infanticide. People are having a hard time identifying at what point of gestation abortion should be illegal. Pro-abortion extremists seem to indicate that they will not stop the abortion push until infanticide is legal.

    4. As one who did not vote for Trump, here is something to consider:
    In the Bible, there are several Kings of Israel and Judah who were considered good for their respective kingdoms but as individuals they did not keep the law of Moses.

    Cyrus, King of Persia, fulfilled Jehovah's prophecies regarding return of the Jews to Israel, building of the temple, and restoration of Israel as a kingdom. God's prophecies and work are fulfilled even by the non-believers and wicked.

    That is why it is important to look at actual accomplishments and achievements in the economy, religious freedom, constitutional protections, checks and balances, and international peace agreements, etc.

    It is unlikely that we will have candidates like the Prophet/Kings Benjamin or Mosiah. So I try to vote for those that will hold to the original protections established in the divinely inspired U.S. Constitution and have a record of protecting freedom of religion.

  2. I don't know who you mean by "pro-arbortion" or favoring "infanticide" because I have a lot of Liberal and Democratic Party friends and I'm not like that nor are any of them. The rest of your points tend to speak for themselves without the need for further comment.

  3. and BAF, thanks for the related comment but I accidentally deleted it. Seriously. While I appreciate the comment, I would like you to provide some references to support your propositions about the sexual behavior of younger females which I already tried to convey was not the same as the issue of abortion.

    1. I was able to find and copy your original comment from my email notice. Here it is:

      "In addition to the other comments, evidence appears to raise other issues with free, unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion:
      1. Contraceptives freely given to teens will result in greater promiscuity.
      2. Contraceptives freely given to teens will result in greater STDs.
      3. Contraceptives freely given to teens will result in weaker commitment to marriage before sex.
      4. Unrestricted abortion without parental/family involvement results in mental health trauma.

      Extreme pro-abortion advocates want to eliminate parents/families being informed or involved in contraceptive and abortion decision-making. Legislation has been introduced many times supporting such things. Some states have passed some form of legislation in this regard."

      My comments stand.

  4. Dear Readers:

    I think it appropriate to address some issues about the first two comments on this thread. By some simple knowledge of circumstances and initials and a quick check on linked family blogs, and also by some context in those first two comments, I have very good reason to believe that they are members of the same family. The comments obviously feed off each other. Besides the glaring problem that they tend to emphasize my point, so maybe I should just leave them alone, I am still bothered by the appearance of ham-handed manipulation of free and open dialogue on this blog. It is a form of "trolling" that I unfortunately did not list in my invitation for comments below because I guess I could not have conceived or anticipated it. I don't know if one can be unintentionally disingenuous or intellectually dishonest. I does seem to be unfair to pretend to be two independent comments that come from the same family and may have had some coordination.

    Also, the comment that I somehow need to "look like a believing, practicing member rather an 'in-name-only' member" appears to be the kind of religious test that fortunately our divinely inspired Constitution prohibits the government from requiring but still runs rampant within faith communities. (Besides the fact that the full name of our Church appears below my occasionally modified title). Yes, I believe that these comments come from people in my faith community and from people who know me, know me very well, or perhaps not at all as they seem so judgmental as they look beyond the mark. While I did make an invitation to at least one in this family to peruse my blog to learn more about my views, I am disappointed and disheartened that these comments appear to reveal a judgmental attitude beyond their obvious right-wing mentality that seem to be a serious blind spot for the authors (or author).

    Nobody has to agree with my views. Nobody has to like my blog. I will battle with those who use deceptive means to promote an agenda that fortunately any sincere reader of this blog will recognize is far from what I hold dear.

  5. Both comments you reference are from BAF. There was no skulduggery involved with the two separate identifiers. Just lack of experience with social media. I changed the identifier on comment #2 so my wife or son would not be connected with my further comments.

    I know who you are Grant. The comment on the Church's name was to help you so other people would not dismiss you as a non-serious Church member who is a crank who doesn't sustain those who preside. You certainly don't have to take my benign advice.

    Please don't take every question as a comment/judgement. They are legitimate, sincere questions that deserve answering.

    I am not saying you and your friends who are pro-choice believe what the extremists believe. But pro-choice extremists have made their goal clear through legislation initiatives and online. Most Christians and other people of faith agree with the statement made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on appropriateness of abortion. So the question that still needs to be answered is--How does one determine where a pro-choice candidate is on the range between the LDS Church's statement on abortion and infanticide?

    In addition, the pro-choice group doesn't seem to be satisfied with the ability to choose to have an abortion. They demand the federal government, state government, or employer pay for abortion and contraceptives without restriction no matter the reason. Why the unrelenting demand for it to be provided for free without any restrictions? It is not really that expensive and there are plenty of places that will do it for free if the person doesn't want to pay for it themselves.

    The thing that is frustrating is that the responses tend to attack the person commenting as judgmental and right wing in order to dismiss the questions as not worthy of a response rather than actually address the questions.

    1. Thank you, BAF. The readers now have a clearer view of our respective positions and can judge for themselves.


Comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree as many do. You can even be passionate (in moderation). Comments that contain offensive language, too many caps, conspiracy theories, gratuitous Mormon bashing, personal attacks on others who comment, or commercial solicitations- I send to spam. This is a troll-free zone. Charity always!