Mormons: Why no sanctity of life for the preborn?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Good_Daughter

Guest
Devout Mormons disapprove of the practice of abortion in many circumstances. Despite this disapproval, it seems they do not believe in the sanctity of preborn human life (hence the exceptions to their anti-abortion policy). A mother’s life, for example, is more valuable than her preborn baby’s life by virtue of the fact she has already been born. This has never made sense to me. I’m looking for some theological explanation or scriptural backup for the Mormon position.
 
Devout Mormons disapprove of the practice of abortion in many circumstances. Despite this disapproval, it seems they do not believe in the sanctity of preborn human life (hence the exceptions to their anti-abortion policy). A mother’s life, for example, is more valuable than her preborn baby’s life by virtue of the fact she has already been born. This has never made sense to me. I’m looking for some theological explanation or scriptural backup for the Mormon position.
I discussed this very issue with two lovely lady Mormon missionaries several years ago. They blushed and stammerd but no answer. LDS can abort if a rape caused the pregnancy, mother thinks she could be harmed in some way if she carried baby to term, etc. It seems very strange in light of the fact that LDS believe that spirit babies (they were concieved in the spirit world by God and one of His wives)choose who they want to live with on earth, then come to earth via earth mother. If that earth mommy has a “good” reason to abort, she can and the spirit baby is sent where???

If you ask an LDS member about this, you will get a shrug and told that God can do anything and that this answer is not made clear yet. There is nothing in scripture about any of this. Remember, LDS can change anything they wish at any time. The prophet is Jesus on earth. The apostles are “apostles” on earth.

Love and Peace,
Mom of 5
 
If that earth mommy has a “good” reason to abort, she can and the spirit baby is sent where???
The more astute LDS will tell you that “there is always another body”. They believe that the spirit is not really tied to the body until birth. So if the mother aborts the baby, the spirit will get born into some other body. That is why they do not have the horror towards abortion that Christians have.

Hope this helps,
Paul (a former Mormon)
 
The more astute LDS will tell you that “there is always another body”. They believe that the spirit is not really tied to the body until birth. So if the mother aborts the baby, the spirit will get born into some other body. That is why they do not have the horror towards abortion that Christians have.

Hope this helps,
Paul (a former Mormon)
From your experience in Mormonism do you have any idea how this is supported, theologically or scripturally?
 
Devout Mormons disapprove of the practice of abortion in many circumstances. Despite this disapproval, it seems they do not believe in the sanctity of preborn human life (hence the exceptions to their anti-abortion policy). A mother’s life, for example, is more valuable than her preborn baby’s life by virtue of the fact she has already been born. This has never made sense to me. I’m looking for some theological explanation or scriptural backup for the Mormon position.
The only explanation I have ever seen:

"A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:

“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.

“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.

“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”

The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top