T
teenagethinker
Guest
OR, your either Pro-Battered Children or Pro-death…
- Status
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Well I don’t want to contribute a whole lot in this thread as TOmN is doing a nice job of representing LDS beliefs IMHO. I don’t think it is an error to characterize the LDS church as ProLife. I will grant if we define the term with Catholic theological implications, the LDS position falls short. However, this would be an idiosynchratic definition that fails to cover the range of political and moral beliefs in common usage. See for instance:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
To elaborate on one of TOmN’s points, LDS church members are statistically more Pro-Life in practice (in general) than Catholic members. From a book review on the Bennett books we read:
“First, Utah does not just have a low abortion rate-it has the lowest abortion rate among all the states, and this despite having the highest birth rate. Of course, the fact that Utah has the lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate might be a contributing factor as well.[41] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism has the strictest stance against abortion I know of, but a recent study showed that “Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely.”[42] In a 1992 Gallup Poll, only 12.9% of Catholics surveyed responded that abortion is never a morally acceptable choice.[43] Bennett only once attempts to compare Catholic and Mormon statistics by citing the divorce rates in Utah and Rhode Island, where the population is 63% Catholic (*IM,*p. 149 n. 16). But when it comes to the abortion issue, he neglects to inform us that while Utah had an abortion rate of 8 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1998, Rhode Island’s abortion rate was 24 per 1,000, and the national average was 23.”
farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=396
Later,
fool
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I suppose that would make sense to a Mormon if the LDS church officially revealed exactly when a fetus receives a spirit. But since the church has not, the only possible moral conclusion is to not allow such abortions. Otherwise, how can one be sure they are not committing murder?
C
Chris-WA
Guest
mormon fool:
Probably true, but irrelevant. I know that Mormons in general are better at practicing their religion than Catholics. I see that every day. But that has nothing to do with which doctrine is correct on this issue. You can’t compare the two religions in this way. The Catholic Church is 1800 years older, and has about 986 million more members. Mormons cannot say where their church will be 1800 years from now, and how many will be faithfully practicing. The issue is the doctrine itself, not how well or poorly the masses are practicing it.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Thank you. I’ve asked my wife about this a couple of times after I first heard it myself. She said she never heard of it and didn’t think it was true. I asked her to find out for herself by asking someone at church, but to my knowledge she never did. She seems hesitant to go looking for this kind of information.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Chris,
You are right that it would be difficult to make a really fair comparison between the two churches based on statistics. But that hardly makes some observations irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. A teaching can be judged in part by trends seen in its results. The observation that mormons are (generally) perhaps more Pro-Life in practice goes a long ways to determining whether the LDS church deserves to consider itself Pro-life (as the term is commonly used) or not.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
mormon fool:
I think we can agree that most Mormons are very pro-life. Official LDS church doctrine is mostly pro-life, with the noteable exceptions shown in previous posts. Why the discrepency between what Mormons believe and what the LDS church officially teaches? Simple–most Mormons are uninformed about these exceptions. The question is why.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
mormon fool:
I think we can agree that most Mormons are very pro-life. Official LDS church doctrine is mostly pro-life, with the noteable exceptions shown in previous posts. Why the discrepancy between what Mormons believe and what the LDS church officially teaches? Simple–most Mormons are uninformed about these exceptions. The question is why.
F
flameburns623
Guest
I should note that I consider myself to be pro-life AND that I believe that law should indeed provide provisions for abortion in the even of clear and eminent threat to the life of the mother and/or the clear conclusion of competent authority that the fetus is severely deformed beyond any likeliehood it will survive birth. Allowing abortion in the event of rape or incest is a bit more problematic in my eyes–why should a healthy pregnancy result in the death of an innocent life, since the mother is NOT obliged in such a situation to keep the infant? In other words, I differ from the ‘official position’ of the LDS Church only on a single issue. And even on this issue–the LDS does not ‘mandate’ abortion but merely permits it, after consultation with the young woan’s priesthood leadership, etcetera. Surely such a position would tend to discourage such abortions more often than encourage them, I suspect.
Frankly, I suspect that many Protestants who expend countless hours and countless dollars supporting the Pro-Life movement hold to a position similar to my own and consider themselves just as fully pro-life as Roman Catholics who qualify their opposition to abortion in no way. I think it unfair to style the LDS Church as ‘anti-life’ or ‘not pro-life’ when their position is not dissimilar from the position help by most other pro-life Protestants. Moreover: a carefully crafted law worded along the lines of the LDS position would eliminate the vast and overwhelming majority of abortions-on-demand which currently take place. Given the state of medicine, the exceptions allowed by the LDS position have been estimated to be likely to permit only a few thousands or tens of thousands annually, as opposed to the millions now occurring. (Sorry–I have no direct source for this-the estimate was offered on a pro-life Protestant radio program several months ago and I cannot recollect clearly either the show or the speaker).
I do not believe that the Roman Catholic position absolutely banning abortion in any circumstance whatever will ever be written into law, in the USA or anywhere else where abortion is currently legal. However–if the laws of this nation were re-written in a manner compatible with the LDS position on abortion, vast numbers of lives would be saved, including the lives of the offspring of innumerable ‘cafeteria Catholics’ who currently ignore their own Church position when it is inconvenient so to do. Rather than sniping at an ally on this issue, it would be far better to deal with issues over which there is substantive and serious disagreement.
Frankly, I suspect that many Protestants who expend countless hours and countless dollars supporting the Pro-Life movement hold to a position similar to my own and consider themselves just as fully pro-life as Roman Catholics who qualify their opposition to abortion in no way. I think it unfair to style the LDS Church as ‘anti-life’ or ‘not pro-life’ when their position is not dissimilar from the position help by most other pro-life Protestants. Moreover: a carefully crafted law worded along the lines of the LDS position would eliminate the vast and overwhelming majority of abortions-on-demand which currently take place. Given the state of medicine, the exceptions allowed by the LDS position have been estimated to be likely to permit only a few thousands or tens of thousands annually, as opposed to the millions now occurring. (Sorry–I have no direct source for this-the estimate was offered on a pro-life Protestant radio program several months ago and I cannot recollect clearly either the show or the speaker).
I do not believe that the Roman Catholic position absolutely banning abortion in any circumstance whatever will ever be written into law, in the USA or anywhere else where abortion is currently legal. However–if the laws of this nation were re-written in a manner compatible with the LDS position on abortion, vast numbers of lives would be saved, including the lives of the offspring of innumerable ‘cafeteria Catholics’ who currently ignore their own Church position when it is inconvenient so to do. Rather than sniping at an ally on this issue, it would be far better to deal with issues over which there is substantive and serious disagreement.
J
JRR
Guest
Prior to discovering “Gospel Principles” I thought the LDS church was Pro-Life because of the past statements from Presidents Benson and Kimball. They used terms as “unborn humans” and “child” in describing the killing of the unborn in abortion. These prophets even call abortion a “serious sin,” “heinous” and a “damnable practice.”
Yet the prophet Kimball reverses himself by stating abortion is permissible under the exceptions as presented in post #10. These circumstances in which abortion may be committed (after serious prayer and consultation with authorities) does not reaches back to the core: that abortion kills a human child.
The Mormon Church claims to provide contemporary man with clear moral guidance yet make these exceptions. The Mormon Church opens itself to the charge of grave hypocrisy when it presents itself to the public as unasbashedly pro-family and pro-life.
It appears this major teaching of the Mormon Church has not been taught to the majority of its members. I would hope as members of the Mormon Church become aware of it they would pray and ask their god to enlighten their prophet to reverse this grave error.
Yet the prophet Kimball reverses himself by stating abortion is permissible under the exceptions as presented in post #10. These circumstances in which abortion may be committed (after serious prayer and consultation with authorities) does not reaches back to the core: that abortion kills a human child.
The Mormon Church claims to provide contemporary man with clear moral guidance yet make these exceptions. The Mormon Church opens itself to the charge of grave hypocrisy when it presents itself to the public as unasbashedly pro-family and pro-life.
It appears this major teaching of the Mormon Church has not been taught to the majority of its members. I would hope as members of the Mormon Church become aware of it they would pray and ask their god to enlighten their prophet to reverse this grave error.
T
tkdnick
Guest
The idea behind the procedure for an ectopic pregnancy IS NOT to kill the baby! The ultimate goal is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube and place it in the uterus. However, current medical capabilities do not allow this. The goal here is not to terminate the pregnancy, but sadly, that is the case at this point in time.
G
GKB_Protasius
Guest
I have a question in regards to post #5:
First it seems beyond disputation that the Catholic Church prior to 1869 used terms such as “fetus animates” and “fetus inanimates.” The absence of these terms in today’s Catholic church seems to represents a change in doctrine.
Could you expand on this point some more? If I remember right, I have heard liberal Catholics use Saint Thomas Aquina’s position on ensoulment to say that Catholics had accepted abortion in the past. However, I don’t think the Catholic position is based on (or exclusively based on) ensoulment. So I’m not sure if what you are saying here would indicate a change in doctrine. Our doctrine does develop (for example, Catholics always believed that the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus, but we didn’t use the term transubstatiation to describe it until later), but I don’t think or believe that it changes. Your pointing to the fetus animates vs. fetus inanimates seems similar. I did a search on those terms but it led me back to a discussion you were having with someone on the same topic. Could you tell us more about this distinction and let me know some references on it? Thanks!
Peace in Christ,
Frank
First it seems beyond disputation that the Catholic Church prior to 1869 used terms such as “fetus animates” and “fetus inanimates.” The absence of these terms in today’s Catholic church seems to represents a change in doctrine.
Could you expand on this point some more? If I remember right, I have heard liberal Catholics use Saint Thomas Aquina’s position on ensoulment to say that Catholics had accepted abortion in the past. However, I don’t think the Catholic position is based on (or exclusively based on) ensoulment. So I’m not sure if what you are saying here would indicate a change in doctrine. Our doctrine does develop (for example, Catholics always believed that the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus, but we didn’t use the term transubstatiation to describe it until later), but I don’t think or believe that it changes. Your pointing to the fetus animates vs. fetus inanimates seems similar. I did a search on those terms but it led me back to a discussion you were having with someone on the same topic. Could you tell us more about this distinction and let me know some references on it? Thanks!
Peace in Christ,
Frank
T
TOmNossor
Guest
GKB Protasius:
My statement was originally quite simple and I had not gone beyond it previously. I said that the Catholic position on Abortion has developed. The fact that Catholics call abortion MURDER today and point to it as wrong because murder is wrong is a development.
As I have looked into this more, the Catholic position of old seems more similar to the current LDS position. Abortion is always an evil. LDS cannot say when that evil is absolutely murder. Catholics previously said that the evil of abortion was not a murder before ensoulment, which they said did not occur until well into the pregnancy.
I am not suggesting that Catholics ever have been pro-choice (I think this is not a good read of history, but some folks with an agenda even disagree here). The absolute linkage to murder is what I say has developed.
BTW, Transubstantiation did develop, but “the real presence” has one of the strongest pedigrees of any criticized development in the church. Not a perfect pedigree, but a pedigree that in my opinion does not require Newman’s development theories to embrace.
Charity, TOm
I do believe ensoulment was associated with 1869 change/development. Pope Pius IX (Pope from 1846-78) proclaimed that the soul was embraced at conception (and this was understood to be less than a couple of hours post intercourse), before this there were other views. If I remember correctly “fetus animates” and “fetus inanimates” were terms associated with the ensoulment question.
My statement was originally quite simple and I had not gone beyond it previously. I said that the Catholic position on Abortion has developed. The fact that Catholics call abortion MURDER today and point to it as wrong because murder is wrong is a development.
As I have looked into this more, the Catholic position of old seems more similar to the current LDS position. Abortion is always an evil. LDS cannot say when that evil is absolutely murder. Catholics previously said that the evil of abortion was not a murder before ensoulment, which they said did not occur until well into the pregnancy.
I am not suggesting that Catholics ever have been pro-choice (I think this is not a good read of history, but some folks with an agenda even disagree here). The absolute linkage to murder is what I say has developed.
BTW, Transubstantiation did develop, but “the real presence” has one of the strongest pedigrees of any criticized development in the church. Not a perfect pedigree, but a pedigree that in my opinion does not require Newman’s development theories to embrace.
Charity, TOm
T
tkdnick
Guest
Can you show these developments?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Do you mean show that abortion was not linked to murder (in fact was generally linked to sexual sin)?
Or do you mean that the real presence does not have a “Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins” (always believed, everywhere believed, and by all believed) pedigree?
I can do either of both, but development is a strong reality within every Christian, Jewish, and prolly other religious structures.
Charity, TOm
A
Arch_Stanton
Guest
I am a former RLDS. I cannot comment on the use or misuse of a LDS president’s writings. Admittedly, I am not familiar with them.
I doubt it is Catholic Answers’ intent to selectively quote someone’s writings to make them look bad.
What is certain is that both the Catholic and Mormon faiths condemn abortion as a serious sin.
The difference, however, is that the Catholics do not make exceptions as the Mormons do (i.e., rape, incest). And, for obvious reasons, Catholic teaching goes back further and has been more consistent than the Mormons (of whatever stripe).
I doubt it is Catholic Answers’ intent to selectively quote someone’s writings to make them look bad.
What is certain is that both the Catholic and Mormon faiths condemn abortion as a serious sin.
The difference, however, is that the Catholics do not make exceptions as the Mormons do (i.e., rape, incest). And, for obvious reasons, Catholic teaching goes back further and has been more consistent than the Mormons (of whatever stripe).
T
tkdnick
Guest
Sorry. Should have been more specific. I meant specifically these:
“The fact that Catholics call abortion MURDER today and point to it as wrong because murder is wrong is a development.”
“Transubstantiation did develop”
T
TOmNossor
Guest
On the development of abortion teaching:
I could pull a number of things from a number of sources, but this web site (despite my distaste for its conclusion) has a good collection of evidences.
I will copy a few statements from it, and then provide the link. Again, I am not pro-choice. I would even oppose choice in the case of rape or incest were I to be able to vote on such things.
There is more at this web site on the history of this development.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/cathwomen/abortiondecision.htm
Religions develop! This does not mean that God is not unchangeable, merely that we hopefully move towards greater light and knowledge as we spend more time interacting with the divine. The question becomes is the development toward greater light and knowledge or away.
Charity, TOm
I could pull a number of things from a number of sources, but this web site (despite my distaste for its conclusion) has a good collection of evidences.
I will copy a few statements from it, and then provide the link. Again, I am not pro-choice. I would even oppose choice in the case of rape or incest were I to be able to vote on such things.
TOm:
There is more at this web site on the history of this development.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/cathwomen/abortiondecision.htm
Religions develop! This does not mean that God is not unchangeable, merely that we hopefully move towards greater light and knowledge as we spend more time interacting with the divine. The question becomes is the development toward greater light and knowledge or away.
Charity, TOm
T
Tmaque
Guest
Up until the last century, Catholics, and the rest of the world for that matter, could only guess when the embryo became “alive” in the womb. Now, through modern medicine we know how an egg fundamentally changes from the very moment of conception. We now know that the DNA, the blueprint for the organism, is there in it’s entirety. We now know that the blastocyst, zygote or embryo is in every way as human as a newborn baby.
This is not doctrinal development! The intentional killing of a human being was always murder. Now we know WHEN life begins for human beings. We didn’t know that previously. It’s science giving us insight into a concept that wasn’t certain and was never claimed by the church to be certain. For instance, for someone in the 15th century to say ensoulment occurs late in the pregnancy simply reflects a common belief of the time (they didn’t know the baby was alive until it kicked!). This was not doctrine, it was a common false understanding of human biology that science would one day correct.
T
Tmaque
Guest
Again,
All of this opinion from early church leaders were based on false
biology. Had they known that life did indeed begin at conception, there’s no doubt that their positions on abortion would have been much more serious and strict.
- Status