Help with debating a Mormon

[ParkerD]

I suggest that you read and understand without interpreting what you read and mis-
understand. Where does it say that there were other “known” nations in the “New World” other than in those made up in the BOM? The Bible and documents of that age reveal none. And again, you misinterpret Isaiah and read what you want into it.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
I hope you are kidding. Are you saying there were no “nations” or people in the New World at 400 BC or 100 BC or 34 AD or 100 AD?

When I read the words of Isaiah, I let the words mean what the words say. If that is “reading into it what I want” as opposed to “reading into it what you want” then I do prefer letting the words mean what they say rather than what you might want them to mean.

 

[placido]

I disagree with you. Quoting anti-Mormon sections of the BOM embarrasses Mormons.

Sorry, what I wanted to say is this: when mormons quote from the BOM (a work of fiction) they are brinking embassment to themselves.

placido

 

[placido]

When I read the words of Isaiah, I let the words mean what the words say. If that is “reading into it what I want” as opposed to “reading into it what you want” then I do prefer letting the words mean what they say rather than what you might want them to mean.

Dear ParkerD, I do agree with you 100 % - on condition you “let the words mean what the words say” not only in Isaiah, but in the whole Bible.

placido

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

This is not exactly true. There are exceptions when abortion is permited but abortion is never encouraged. But in case of possible death of the woman if the baby is born or in the case of rape, it is permited after counseling and discussion with a priesthood leader. But mormons have far less abortions than catholics per capita.

The number of abortions is irrelevant. Is this a tit for tat conversation? The point is that abortion is never allowed in the Catholic Church, and if Catholics are getting abortions, they are going against Church teaching, since it is forbidden in all situations. On the other hand, the Mormon church allows for abortion in certain [rare] circumstances, with revelation from God apparently confirming the decision. That is the difference.

 

[dianaiad]

It is exactly true. The Mormon Church has declared abortion no longer intrinsically evil.
If the Mormon Church still believed it to be intrinsically evil, there would be no exceptions.

Tell me: is it intrinsically evil to kill another human being?
A yes or no answer is required.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
I hope you are kidding. Are you saying there were no “nations” or people in the New World at 400 BC or 100 BC or 34 AD or 100 AD?

When I read the words of Isaiah, I let the words mean what the words say. If that is “reading into it what I want” as opposed to “reading into it what you want” then I do prefer letting the words mean what they say rather than what you might want them to mean.

Yes, there were people in the new world, but they were unknown to the peoples of that time. There is no Biblical, or any historical evidence, that they did. If they did know
then there would be some record or evidence that they knew. This is where you read into scripture what it does not say, regardless of your insistance that it does. Because the BOM says it is so does not make it so. Only LDS accept the BOM.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[John_Larocque]

Tell me: is it intrinsically evil to kill another human being?
A yes or no answer is required.

I hope this isn’t one of those leading questions. There are examples in the Bible (and also the BoM) where God commands to kill and they kill. Or he commands people to kill, they don’t kill, and he’s unhappy they disobeyed him. The particular passage I’m referring to here is somewhere in - I think - Judges? - the Israelites have repossesed land from the original inhabitants - God has told them to mass-slaughter them, but since they do not, in punishment, he prophecies these same neighbors will vex and punish Israel for years to come for their disobedience. The famous example in the Book of Mormon involves something that shows up later in the BoM narrative, the Sword of Laban. Early on in Jerusalem, the spirit constrains Nephi to cut off the head of the drunken, sleeping Laban with his own sword, whose death made it possible retreive the family geneologies and religious scriptures to take to them on their journey to America.

Anyway, short answer, if God commands it, it can’t be evil. Is that where your question is leading?

In any case, “Gospel Principles” is problematic because it makes the kind of exceptions that it does on abortion, and it definitely differs from the unequivocal Catholic stance. Note, Gospel Principles is a basic catechetical text that can be found in multiple LDS homes, with introductions to most of the basic LDS beliefs. A basic text of this is online if someone hasn’t included it before:

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-49,00.html

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, there were people in the new world, but they were unknown to the peoples of that time. There is no Biblical, or any historical evidence, that they did. If they did know
then there would be some record or evidence that they knew. This is where you read into scripture what it does not say, regardless of your insistance that it does. Because the BOM says it is so does not make it so. Only LDS accept the BOM.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
Isaiah may have known about the New World, by revelation or by visions. God certainly knew about the entire world and every person in the world. He would be equally concerned about every person in the entire world, and His plan and His love would include every person in the world (not just the world known to the Jews). He could inspire prophets to write a word meaning “all” and mean exactly that.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I hope this isn’t one of those leading questions. There are examples in the Bible (and also the BoM) where God commands to kill and they kill. Or he commands people to kill, they don’t kill, and he’s unhappy they disobeyed him. The particular passage I’m referring to here is somewhere in - I think - Judges? - the Israelites have repossesed land from the original inhabitants - God has told them to mass-slaughter them, but since they do not, in punishment, he prophecies these same neighbors will vex and punish Israel for years to come for their disobedience. The famous example in the Book of Mormon involves something that shows up later in the BoM narrative, the Sword of Laban. Early on in Jerusalem, the spirit constrains Nephi to cut off the head of the drunken, sleeping Laban with his own sword, whose death made it possible retreive the family geneologies and religious scriptures to take to them on their journey to America.

Anyway, short answer, if God commands it, it can’t be evil. Is that where your question is leading?

In any case, “Gospel Principles” is problematic because it makes the kind of exceptions that it does on abortion, and it definitely differs from the unequivocal Catholic stance. Note, Gospel Principles is a basic catechetical text that can be found in multiple LDS homes, with introductions to most of the basic LDS beliefs. A basic text of this is online if someone hasn’t included it before:

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-49,00.html

The Church Handbook of Instructions for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics says:

“Formal Church discipline may be necessary for members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for abortions. However, Church discipline should not be considered for members who were involved in an abortion before they were baptized or because 1) the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest, 2) the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy, or 3) the fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”
On another page it says
“Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”

 

[Arandur]

There is a small problem with that statement. if Jesus’ teaching fulfilled all prophecy, we wouldn’t know anything about Him. He didn’t actually write anything Himself, y’see, unless you count a little dirt doodling, and we don’t know exactly what He wrote there.

Everything we have about Him comes from His apostles (who are prophets by definition…) What MADE them prophets is that He taught them; Jesus = God, and having God talk to you is what makes you a prophet. As well, He appeared to them after His death and resurrection. He communicated with them. He continued teaching them, and giving them instruction for the church. That is the very definition of ‘prophet.’

Of course, if you wish to point out that these men knew Him while He lived, and thus might not count, I have to point to Paul…his experience on the road to Damascus was the epitome of prophetic revelation. You can’t GET more ‘prophet’ than Paul…and he showed up a fair number of years after Jesus was crucified.

Therefore it cannot be said that Jesus was the end of it. If anything, He was the beginning of it.

So we have a logical problem here. Obviously Jesus could not have meant that prophecy would cease with Him, because, well…it didn’t. Nor can anybody point to a scripture, or place, or time, when Jesus said 'stop. We’re done now," because there isn’t a place like that.

Mormons use a much different definition of “prophecy” than most other Christians do, and this is evidence of it. To a Mormon, any speaking or teaching of truth, particularly some “new” understanding, is prophecy or revelation.

By the Mormon use of revelation, the Catholic Church does it all the time. Unfolding understanding of the Catholic Church, as taught by it, is essentially “continuing revelation” in Mormon terms.

The confusion comes in the different understanding of the terms used. Mormons have great difficulty understanding that when we Catholics say that “public revelation has ceased,” we mean that all truth essential to our salvation has already been revealed and exists inherently in the Church, in Scripture and Tradition. *What is left is to understand and apply it. *

Strictly speaking, the Church contains ALL truth, because the Church is a Divine Institution. It IS Christ (Christ as Head, we as Body–and the Holy Spirit as Soul). If Christ and the Spirit are God and are Truth, then the Church is/contains all Truth already. This is a state that did not exist until Christ divinely instituted the Church. And since Christ is Truth incarnate, and He became one of us, He/ALL Truth was revealed to us completely and totally in His Incarnation. As we have from the Gospels, no book could contain all that Truth because it is infinite, and the Spirit leads us into remembrance of all things, of all that Truth that was Christ Revealed, Christ Incarnate. So Christ was total revelation.

This is what Catholics mean. Continuing unfolding of understanding and continuing guidance of the Spirit is and always has been the very centrality of the Catholic Church. As such, since that’s what the Mormons mean by “continuing revelation,” the Church of course has always had it.

We CAN, we Mormons and everybody else, agree that it actually did cease eventually–at least the 'thus saith the Lord" sort that applies to the entire church. We all agree that private inspiration continued. The difference between us is what we think that cessation meant, and what caused it.

Nope. By your definition of revelation, Ecumenical Councils and papal encyclicals are just that–“the sort that applies to the entire church.”

 

[John_Larocque]

“Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”

Given the above, I would hazard to say, in practice, the LDS position isn’t that different from the Catholic one. You would require both personal revelation and the Church leaders to clear the exceptions before you could licitly go through with it. There is a third factor not mentioned here - to “eternally progress” in the Mormon belief system, you need a body. So there are disembodied spirits waiting to be given bodies. This is part of God’s plan, and by not carrying to term (for whatever reason, even with the exceptions) you preventing that from happening. So this is another cultural/theological factor that would predispose someone not to go through with it, all other factors being considered.

This article covers the issue from a “pro-choice” feminist perspective (the mother of Elizabeth Dushku) - her experiences with Mitt Romney, who did counsel one of his parishoners to carry to term and all the consequences that came with that. Note, in the story, the stake president cleared the abortion (under exception #3), but the bishop counselled her otherwise. The baby was carried to term and ultimately died. I’m not arguing the pros and cons here, merely that these are not hypothetical scenarios.

scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Given the above, I would hazard to say, in practice, the LDS position isn’t that different from the Catholic one. You would require both personal revelation and the Church leaders to clearthe exceptions before you could licitly go through with it. There is a third factor not mentioned here - to “eternally progress” in the Mormon belief system, you need a body. So there are disembodied spirits waiting to be given bodies. This is part of God’s plan, and by not carrying to term (for whatever reason, even with the exceptions) you preventing that from happening.

This article covers the issue from a “pro-choice” feminist perspective (the mother of Elizabeth Dushku) - her experiences with Mitt Romney, who did counsel one of his parishoners to carry to term and all the consequences that came with that. Note, in the story, the stake president cleared the abortion (under exception #3), but the bishop counselled her otherwise. The baby died. I’m not arguing the pros and cons here, merely that these are not hypothetical scenarios.

scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm

As far as it being different from us, yes, in practice, there isn’t a big difference between our positions, except that Catholics would never be counseled to have an abortion, as there are no exceptions in Catholic thought. Bringing it back to the topic, it seems that the Mormon stance is that there must be divine confirmation from God to go through with the abortion, while consulting leadership.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Mormons use a much different definition of “prophecy” than most other Christians do, and this is evidence of it. To a Mormon, any speaking or teaching of truth, particularly some “new” understanding, is prophecy or revelation.

By the Mormon use of revelation, the Catholic Church does it all the time. Unfolding understanding of the Catholic Church, as taught by it, is essentially “continuing revelation” in Mormon terms.

The confusion comes in the different understanding of the terms used. Mormons have great difficulty understanding that when we Catholics say that “public revelation has ceased,” we mean that all truth essential to our salvation has already been revealed and exists inherently in the Church, in Scripture and Tradition. *What is left is to understand and apply it. *

Strictly speaking, the Church contains ALL truth, because the Church is a Divine Institution. It IS Christ (Christ as Head, we as Body–and the Holy Spirit as Soul). If Christ and the Spirit are God and are Truth, then the Church is/contains all Truth already. This is a state that did not exist until Christ divinely instituted the Church. And since Christ is Truth incarnate, and He became one of us, He/ALL Truth was revealed to us completely and totally in His Incarnation. As we have from the Gospels, no book could contain all that Truth because it is infinite, and the Spirit leads us into remembrance of all things, of all that Truth that was Christ Revealed, Christ Incarnate. So Christ was total revelation.

This is what Catholics mean. Continuing unfolding of understanding and continuing guidance of the Spirit is and always has been the very centrality of the Catholic Church. As such, since that’s what the Mormons mean by “continuing revelation,” the Church of course has always had it.

Nope. By your definition of revelation, Ecumenical Councils and papal encyclicals are just that–“the sort that applies to the entire church.”

Excellent!

 

[dianaiad]

The number of abortions is irrelevant. Is this a tit for tat conversation? The point is that abortion is never allowed in the Catholic Church, and if Catholics are getting abortions, they are going against Church teaching, since it is forbidden in all situations. On the other hand, the Mormon church allows for abortion in certain [rare] circumstances, with revelation from God apparently confirming the decision. That is the difference.

Of course they are allowed in the Catholic church. They are simply called something else. Any medical procedure performed upon a woman that results in the death of the fetus is an abortion. No medical procedure that would not be required if the fetus were not present can possibly be called anything else instead. The Catholic church allows the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, for instance–a procedure that WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if there were not a fetus growing where it should not be, and the cure for which MUST be the removal of that fetus.

The thing is, abortion to the Mormons is such a serious thing that we look it squarely in the face; take each situation individually, and mom has to be very, very certain that this is the only option to save her life…and as a result, the LDS abortion rate among LDS women happens to be lower than that among Catholic women.

For instance, the population of Catholics to non-Catholics in Rhode Island is about the same percentage as that of the population of Mormons to non-Mormons in Utah. The abortion rate in Utah is 6.4 out of a thousand, and Rhode Island is 22 out of a thousand.

oops.

It seems (from another study) that Mormon women have abortions at approximately 2/3 the rate that Catholic women do.

So…which is better–for a group to understand and face the realities of such a decision, and thus lower the rate at which abortion happens, or to pay lip service to 'never, ever…" but practice it anyway, justifying it through weaseling terms and sophistry, resulting in from a third to four times as many actual abortions as the first group?

I guess it depends on your goals. If you really want to end/limit abortion and save lives, I’d go with the first group. If, however, all you want is to SOUND like you are against it, but not really care for the reality, then by all means, go with the second group.

 

[PJM]

=Bataar;5678995]I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

***The dotrinal and dogmatic truth held by the Apostles are still held today. They can’t change. Our understanding og them might [as one should expect] get better, but the base and baisc truth can’t change.

Lok at Vatican Council II for example, or even vatican I. No new dogma or doctrine was issued by either of them. In VC I the issue of papal infallibility was defined, but its conclusion coincides with the beleiefs of the Apostles and Fathers. Even the Marian Dogmas were long held beliefs of the Church, now defined, but NOT changed.

A world wide Church demands Governance if it is going to survive as ours has for some 2,000 years.

We rely on Councils to teach, to clarify, to Govern; and somehow that’s a bad thing? It has worked well for 265 consecutative Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI. Sounds like “a great plan to me.”

Evidence of the Presece of the HS lies in the fact that even when we had “bad popes” [yes I admit we have had some duzies], not ONE of them made a single dogmatic or doctrinal pronouncement. Pretty neat huh?***

Love and prayers,

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons use a much different definition of “prophecy” than most other Christians do, and this is evidence of it. To a Mormon, any speaking or teaching of truth, particularly some “new” understanding, is prophecy or revelation.

No, actually. Anybody can speak ‘Truth,’ prophets and non-prophets alike. However, in order to be a prophet, and to be speaking as one, God must speak directly to you, and give you a message for the direction and edification of the church…and the world. Prophets receive direct revelation from God. That’s what makes them prophets, and not simply good (or even great) teachers.

By the Mormon use of revelation, the Catholic Church does it all the time. Unfolding understanding of the Catholic Church, as taught by it, is essentially “continuing revelation” in Mormon terms.

Do Catholics believe that God speaks directly to their leaders? As in direct revelation, 'thus saith the Lord" sort of stuff?

I will admit that since people have been emphasizing the role of Sacred Tradition in the doctrine and dogma of the church, I am coming to believe that you may be claiming exactly that…but if so, it does beg a question.

The confusion comes in the different understanding of the terms used. Mormons have great difficulty understanding that when we Catholics say that “public revelation has ceased,” we mean that all truth essential to our salvation has already been revealed and exists inherently in the Church, in Scripture and Tradition. *What is left is to understand and apply it. *

You are quite right. I, at least, don’t understand it. Isn’t Sacred Tradition an ongoing thing?

Strictly speaking, the Church contains ALL truth, because the Church is a Divine Institution. It IS Christ (Christ as Head, we as Body–and the Holy Spirit as Soul). If Christ and the Spirit are God and are Truth, then the Church is/contains all Truth already. This is a state that did not exist until Christ divinely instituted the Church. And since Christ is Truth incarnate, and He became one of us, He/ALL Truth was revealed to us completely and totally in His Incarnation. As we have from the Gospels, no book could contain all that Truth because it is infinite, and the Spirit leads us into remembrance of all things, of all that Truth that was Christ Revealed, Christ Incarnate. So Christ was total revelation.

This is what Catholics mean.

I don’t get it. Honestly. As I have written before, if all truth were revealed during Christ’s incarnation, then how come we know anything about Him? How could anyone have the nerve to claim continuing revelation FROM Him? Yet you do.

Continuing unfolding of understanding and continuing guidance of the Spirit is and always has been the very centrality of the Catholic Church. As such, since that’s what the Mormons mean by “continuing revelation,” the Church of course has always had it.

But nothing that results in scripture. Nothing that is put down in words, combined in the canon…it is a curious thing, to me.

Nope. By your definition of revelation, Ecumenical Councils and papal encyclicals are just that–“the sort that applies to the entire church.”

But you don’t claim that it is. WE claim that ongoing revelation to prophets must result in scripture, as the ongoing revelation to Peter, James, John and Paul was included in scripture: writings about revelation that happened after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Why were they included in the canon, but the stuff you claim is the same thing (the ecumenical councils, et.al) is not?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Of course they are allowed in the Catholic church. They are simply called something else. Any medical procedure performed upon a woman that results in the death of the fetus is an abortion. No medical procedure that would not be required if the fetus were not present can possibly be called anything else instead. The Catholic church allows the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, for instance–a procedure that WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if there were not a fetus growing where it should not be, and the cure for which MUST be the removal of that fetus.

This is false, and is a redefinition of abortive procedures, as well as confusing two different medical issues. There is quite a bit of difference between the medical assessment and procedure involved in ectopic pregnancies, and the situations where Mormons are allowed to have abortions. In many if not most cases of ectopic pregnancy, the procedure is NOT the removal of the fetus, but the removal of the ruptured fallopian tube, which is a procedure that would be necessary in situations OTHER than an extra-uterine pregnancy. You are equating two different areas of medicine that are not equivalent. There is quite a bit of difference between spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, and indirect abortion, including how such issues are approached medically.

I studied anatomy and physiology, pathophysiology, and worked in an ER and as a medic, so I’d love to hear your logic in this, because it makes no sense.

prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

Great information from physicians.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,
Isaiah may have known about the New World, by revelation or by visions. God certainly knew about the entire world and every person in the world. He would be equally concerned about every person in the entire world, and His plan and His love would include every person in the world (not just the world known to the Jews). He could inspire prophets to write a word meaning “all” and mean exactly that.

Yes, I agree 100%. But it still does not mean that the people Israel, or others, departed for the new world then. I repeat, there is no evidence in any of the writings of the Jews, or
others, to indicate such. There is no other historical, paleoentological, or archaelogical evidence that any of the peoples of the old world emigrated to the new world before 1000 a.d. If it did occur, there would be myriad evidence, other than the BOM.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Arandur]

Of course they are allowed in the Catholic church. They are simply called something else. Any medical procedure performed upon a woman that results in the death of the fetus is an abortion. No medical procedure that would not be required if the fetus were not present can possibly be called anything else instead. The Catholic church allows the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, for instance–a procedure that WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if there were not a fetus growing where it should not be, and the cure for which MUST be the removal of that fetus.

No, an abortion is something done with the explicit purpose of killing a baby. Various complications can arise in pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother and require some procedure that would threaten the life of the baby (though they are very rare these days). Every effort must be made to save both, with no attempt just to go in and kill the baby.

The thing is, abortion to the Mormons is such a serious thing that we look it squarely in the face; take each situation individually, and mom has to be very, very certain that this is the only option to save her life

That’s a false claim if the mom can use rape or incest as justification for abortion. Her life doesn’t need to be in danger at all. Your church apparently supports making the child pay the ultimate price for the sins of its father.

Also, apparently your church supports killing the child early on rather than giving it a chance to live if it appears to have a developmental problem. That seems to be misplacing faith in a medical diagnosis (which are often wrong) and quality of life argument and rather than the possibility of Providence. Apparently it is also better to end all possibility of God working even a minor miracle when hope in earthly medicine is small.

…and as a result, the LDS abortion rate among LDS women happens to be lower than that among Catholic women.

Coincidence of statistics is not correlation, and certainly does not declare complete correlation. There are other factors. One is that a large proportion of Catholics in the U.S. are pretty secularized cafeteria Catholics or liberal Catholics who reject the Church’s teachings and are (often) de facto self-excommunicated (not actually Catholics in communion with the Church). Another is the fact that these days, support for large families seems to have dwindled to a small minority position among most Catholics, while among Mormons, there appears to be great support for large families. I would wager that both of these factors are by far the major ones influencing higher general rates of abortion among Catholics.

So…which is better–for a group to understand and face the realities of such a decision, and thus lower the rate at which abortion happens, or to pay lip service to 'never, ever…" but practice it anyway, justifying it through weaseling terms and sophistry, resulting in from a third to four times as many actual abortions as the first group?

There is no “justification from” the Church, no "weaseling terms or sophistry."
Those things only come from individuals going against the Church, just as would a Mormon who didn’t seek counsel. You seem to be imputing the existence of sinners within the Church to acceptance of the sinful position (and thus complicity in guilt) by the Church.

I guess it depends on your goals. If you really want to end/limit abortion and save lives, I’d go with the first group. If, however, all you want is to SOUND like you are against it, but not really care for the reality, then by all means, go with the second group.

On the contrary, I would think that if you really want to end/limit abortion and save lives and promote the dignity and value of each human life, I’d expect consistent defense of the dignity of each human life rather than treating the child as disposable. Your church apparently thinks the child is disposable if the mother’s life is threatened–I skimmed earlier posts and saw no mention that an attempt should be made to save the child. Your church apparently thinks the child is disposable if modern medicine thinks it unlikely that it will survive the pregnancy to be a healthy child. Your church apparently thinks that the child is disposable and should be made a victim as well as the mother if its father committed a grave sin upon the mother.

When it comes down to it, your church has made concessions to popular culture that have little to do with the value of the life of the child. My Church consistently promotes the dignity and value of each human life, regardless of how difficult the circumstances.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

according to one study by Dr. Michael Jarmulowicz, in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5, between 1967 and 1990, 0.004% of abortions were done to save the mother’s life.

In a study by " John Bonner, Eamon O’Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O’Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, ‘Statement by Obstetricians’, The Irish Times 1 April 1992", they claimed that “…there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”

spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/mothers