On abortion

[imanihonjin]

I understand where you're coming from. As an aside, I would like to get to a place where abortion only happens rarely. But as you said, that's going to take a huge coordinated effort that emphasizes contraception and other measures.

Having said that, I think most research suggests that the consequences of abortion are relatively mild when compared to the effects of delivering unwanted children (putting aside your legitimate concerns in China). It might help to focus on women outside of the church, where the stigma of 'near murder' and consequences for sin are not as prevalent. I had an OB/GYN in med school, who claimed matter of factly that he would rather deal with the moral consequences of abortion himself than force a teen girl to carry an pregnancy to term. Back then I bristled at what I thought was his callousness to an extremely important moral dilemma. But as I've thought of that, I have more or less come around to his side. Kids make stupid mistakes all the time. If there isn't a background belief of abortion as sin, I tend to think that the costs of a teen aborting a baby would be less than the consequences of carrying a baby to term, even if it was given up for adoption. The potential of stunting a girl's education, career, and self-esteem is very real. We try to help our kids through mistakes they've made, in order to minimize their effects once they've left the house. It probably sounds very callous, but teen pregnancies are mistakes, and in most instances carrying a baby to term will curtail a life's trajectory for that girl.

Incidentally, I agonized over questions like these while I was still an active believer. Before I made my exit, I did come to the conclusion that assisting a teen with an abortion was not sin, and that I could live with that on my conscience. Interestingly, although Mrs. NWC is pro-choice, she said 'no' when we played the hypothetical game of 'would you have an abortion' now that she isn't a believer. It does carry significant potential downsides. I do agree that abortion is not an easy decision. It shouldn't be viewed as a primary contraceptive choice (I haven't watched the video Goat posted). But in some instances it is a 'better' choice than carrying a baby to term.

I can understand your point of view if you don't believe that life begins until such and such a date in the term of the pregnancy or until birth. However, I cannot understand the position if one believes that life begins at any point earlier than the from which they deem an abortion to be an acceptable form of contraception. If life begins at X period during a pregnancy but an an abortion until a point in time later than X is acceptable simply because of the emotional stress it will put on the mother, then why not allow termination of a child up until 2, 4, 6, 8 or 18?

I get that the rub for when life begins is often, if not in almost all cases, driven by religious ideology, but at this point what else do we have to determine when life begins?

[Eddie]

I'm awaiting statistics on infant adoption by race to go with these anecdotal experiences. I'm open to the possibility that there is all black babies find welcoming homes, but I'm skeptical....

Data for this study was collected in 2002 and published in 2008: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf

So - let me begin by admitting that this data is more than 10 years old. That aside - I suspect that the results would not be significantly different if this same study were done today. And if anything, people would probably be more open to adoption of children with disabilities and of a different race.

This analysis has also shown that nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.

For a frame of reference - the data I've seen says that there were 18,000 infants adopted in the US last year. They define "infant" as a child placed with an adoptive family within a month of birth. I would guess that there may be more women looking to adopt now than were looking to adopt in 2002. Either way - 18,000 infants for 1 million moms aren't good odds for the moms.

Women currently seeking to adopt would prefer to adopt a child younger than 2 years old, without a disability, and a single child rather than two or more siblings. However, 89% of women currently seeking to adopt would prefer or accept a child with a mild disability, 79% would prefer or accept a child 2–5 years old, and 75% would prefer or accept a set of siblings. With regard to transracial adoption, 84% of white adoption seekers would prefer or accept a black child and 95% would prefer or accept a child of a race other than black or white. Similarly, 75% of black adoption seekers would prefer or accept a white child and 93% would prefer or accept a child of another race.

There you have it...while there are potential adoptive parents who would prefer a white child, 84% would at least accept a black child. And 95% would accept a child who was neither white nor black. So there may be less demand, and there may be more supply, and there may be reasons that adoption of a black child results in a lower adoption fee. But the reality is that there are likely more families willing to adopt than there are infants to be adopted...of any color.

http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=523

This adoption historian believes that adoption is less likely now than in the past due to the reduced stigma of being a single parent combined with the increased welfare benefits that help some single parents make ends meet. Her findings are consistent with what I hear from the LDSFS folks that pregnant teens are just less likely to give up a child for adoption today compared to 40 years ago. (She says 1970 was the high tide of adoption in the US). There is reason to speculate why that is, but it is what it is.

[ERCougar]

I understand there's an emotional toll, but I guess as someone that believes in the Mormon Gospel I'd choose life and struggles for a child/teenager over not allowing a life at all. It's just my opinion, but I'd hope that women who don't even want the child would carry it to term and give it up for adoption.

I'll also add that abortion by choice has some very ugly consequences, most of which are not seen in the US. I posted an article a couple years ago about a country (China? India?) that had an abnormal ratio of male/female babies. Essentially parents were aborting the females at higher rates as most parents wanted a male baby first. So allowing (or not prosecuting) abortions under the guise that it's a woman's choice was likely to have some profound and lasting effects on women's rights into the future.

I still think that proper education and easier access to birth control could drastically reduce the need for abortions....but that's just my uninformed opinion.

I actually don't understand the theologic objection. Accepting the Mormon belief of a pre-existent spirit, why would abortion prevent "a chance for a life at all"? Does the spirit lose its opportunity to come down to Earth? The two reasons I can think of for this life (per Mormon theology) is choice and gaining a body, neither of which an unborn fetus accomplishes.

[ERCougar]

I can understand your point of view if you don't believe that life begins until such and such a date in the term of the pregnancy or until birth. However, I cannot understand the position if one believes that life begins at any point earlier than the from which they deem an abortion to be an acceptable form of contraception. If life begins at X period during a pregnancy but an an abortion until a point in time later than X is acceptable simply because of the emotional stress it will put on the mother, then why not allow termination of a child up until 2, 4, 6, 8 or 18?

I get that the rub for when life begins is often, if not in almost all cases, driven by religious ideology, but at this point what else do we have to determine when life begins?

Well, "when life begins" is a fairly vague and unimportant phrase, but putting that aside, when would you say that "life begins"? Or more relevantly, when the right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to end support of that life?

[imanihonjin]

I actually don't understand the theologic objection. Accepting the Mormon belief of a pre-existent spirit, why would abortion prevent "a chance for a life at all"? Does the spirit lose its opportunity to come down to Earth? The two reasons I can think of for this life (per Mormon theology) is choice and gaining a body, neither of which an unborn fetus accomplishes.

I am not sure on this one. You may be right, but I just am not sure.

[imanihonjin]

Well, "when life begins" is a fairly vague and unimportant phrase, but putting that aside, when would you say that "life begins"? Or more relevantly, when the right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to end support of that life?

I think everyone would be shocked out of their conscience if a mother chose to terminate a 6 month old because she determined that she didn't want the baggage, right? Why is that the case? From my vantage point, it is because life is sacred and shouldn't be discarded so whimsically. Society has apparently adopted the viewpoint that once a baby is born, its rights outweigh the mother's at that point in time? If life begins earlier than birth, then why is the actual birth of the baby such an important event that would determine the rights of the life of a baby? Too attempt to answer your question, I think that the rights of an unborn baby outweighs the mother's rights when life begins (which I admit to having no clue when that actually happens but firmly believe it is sometime prior to the baby actually being born).

[Northwestcoug]

I think everyone would be shocked out of their conscience if a mother chose to terminate a 6 month old because she determined that she didn't want the baggage, right? Why is that the case? From my vantage point, it is because life is sacred and shouldn't be discarded so whimsically. Society has apparently adopted the viewpoint that once a baby is born, its rights outweigh the mother's at that point in time? If life begins earlier than birth, then why is the actual birth of the baby such an important event that would determine the rights of the life of a baby? Too attempt to answer your question, I think that the rights of an unborn baby outweighs the mother's rights when life begins (which I admit to having no clue when that actually happens but firmly believe it is sometime prior to the baby actually being born).

That's quite the blanket statement, no? So if anyone convinces you that life begins with a fertilized implanted egg, then that cellular mass is more important than the mother.

I respect the pro-life's position. But you have to consider the rights of the mother (and of course the pro-choice side has to consider the rights of the unborn).

[imanihonjin]

That's quite the blanket statement, no? So if anyone convinces you that life begins with a fertilized implanted egg, then that cellular mass is more important than the mother.

I respect the pro-life's position. But you have to consider the rights of the mother (and of course the pro-choice side has to consider the rights of the unborn).

I think I have considered the rights of the mother....her rights are paramount up until the point life begins, which again I admittedly am not sure when that is but believe that it begins before birth. Do you think a mother should be able to off a 3 week old that she has just determined she doesn't want to put up with any more?

[Northwestcoug]

I think I have considered the rights of the mother....her rights are paramount up until the point life begins, which again I admittedly am not sure when that is but believe that it begins before birth. Do you think a mother should be able to off a 3 week old that she has just determined she doesn't want to put up with any more?

Um, no, and that's a completely ridiculous statement.

I'll cut to the chase for you. No one will ever, ever, determine the exact moment when 'life' begins, to the satisfaction of both sides of the debate. So you'll have to decide whether or not to join the majority of the population, who find themselves in a grey zone because the question cannot be adequately answered. It's messy and uncomfortable in the middle, and some might scoff at those who do not adhere to rigid morals. But that is where we're at, because no one can or should say with certainty for every single case, when a mother's rights get superceded by those of her unborn child.

[Eddie]

I think I have considered the rights of the mother....her rights are paramount up until the point life begins, which again I admittedly am not sure when that is but believe that it begins before birth. Do you think a mother should be able to off a 3 week old that she has just determined she doesn't want to put up with any more?

I think that some of the "rights" discussion has to take into account at what point something could be done without infringing upon the other individual's rights.

For instance - a pregnant woman cannot simply decide to no longer be pregnant and have the fetus removed - only to have it continue to grow elsewhere.

But once a 3 week old is born and outside the womb, if the mom doesn't want that responsibility it would be feasible for the infant to go on living elsewhere.

What is strange about this whole discussion, however, is that many states give the mother the opportunity to drop off a baby - no questions asked - within a short period of birth. But once that time has passed, the mom now has responsibility. So, to me at least, there seems to be some sort of disconnect in the thoughts behind these ideas.

[imanihonjin]

Um, no, and that's a completely ridiculous statement.

I'll cut to the chase for you. No one will ever, ever, determine the exact moment when 'life' begins, to the satisfaction of both sides of the debate. So you'll have to decide whether or not to join the majority of the population, who find themselves in a grey zone because the question cannot be adequately answered. It's messy and uncomfortable in the middle, and some might scoff at those who do not adhere to rigid morals. But that is where we're at, because no one can or should say with certainty for every single case, when a mother's rights get superceded by those of her unborn child.

I think you and I agree in principle.....I have never claimed to know when life begins although I do firmly believe that it is sometime before birth, I don't think it is at the time of conception either. I didn't intend my statement to be ridiculous about the offing of a 3 week old baby but simply wanted to point out the complexity of the question of abortion. If a 3 week old is not an option, how about a baby that is an hour old? How about a baby an hour before being born....two weeks prior, 4, 6, 10 or 20 weeks?

[Northwestcoug]

I think you and I agree in principle.....I have never claimed to know when life begins although I do firmly believe that it is sometime before birth, I don't think it is at the time of conception either. I didn't intend my statement to be ridiculous about the offing of a 3 week old baby but simply wanted to point out the complexity of the question of abortion. If a 3 week old is not an option, how about a baby that is an hour old? How about a baby an hour before being born....two weeks prior, 4, 6, 10 or 20 weeks?

More of the ridiculous, huh?

You've made your point, which is pretty close to mine. No one can adequately state at which point of pregnancy do we call 'life', and when (if) it's rights should be paramount to those of the mother's.

[Topper]

More of the ridiculous, huh?

You've made your point, which is pretty close to mine. No one can adequately state at which point of pregnancy do we call 'life', and when (if) it's rights should be paramount to those of the mother's.

The law has to make a distinction when life deserves protection. It is a perhaps arbitrary determination. Life or rights deserving protection are something created or defined by people.

Liberties are given to those who can assert them. That makes sense. Once delivered to this world, government will protect. Asking it to extend before them is a tricky proposition.

[ERCougar]

I think everyone would be shocked out of their conscience if a mother chose to terminate a 6 month old because she determined that she didn't want the baggage, right? Why is that the case? From my vantage point, it is because life is sacred and shouldn't be discarded so whimsically. Society has apparently adopted the viewpoint that once a baby is born, its rights outweigh the mother's at that point in time? If life begins earlier than birth, then why is the actual birth of the baby such an important event that would determine the rights of the life of a baby? Too attempt to answer your question, I think that the rights of an unborn baby outweighs the mother's rights when life begins (which I admit to having no clue when that actually happens but firmly believe it is sometime prior to the baby actually being born).

There are plenty of women who find the idea of the government telling a woman what to do with her own body just as or more repugnant as you find the idea of terminating a pregnancy at 6 months, which only highlights the messiness that NWC points out. Roe v Wade suggests the line should be at the point where the fetus can survive outside of the womb. However, this cutoff is going to move earlier and earlier until we don't even really need a womb. And then where would you draw the line? Fertilization? Well, throw out an entire class of birth control pills, which do little to prevent the fertilization of an egg.

It's really a mess just left alone. And we haven't even touched the messiness associated with alleged sexual assault (does a rape exception encourage false accusations? At what point does abortion become legal? Conviction?) or health jeopardization of the mother (Does this include mental health? Why not?). Again, I find abortion morally wrong in many if not most cases. But I'm not at all comfortable with the government making a blanket moral standard to apply to all cases.

[Moliere]

I actually don't understand the theologic objection. Accepting the Mormon belief of a pre-existent spirit, why would abortion prevent "a chance for a life at all"? Does the spirit lose its opportunity to come down to Earth? The two reasons I can think of for this life (per Mormon theology) is choice and gaining a body, neither of which an unborn fetus accomplishes.

I don't think there's any theological objection in terms of the fetus. Taking an eternal perspective the soul would be saved. The objection would be the mother committing murder