The Church’s Abortion Position is Not Nuanced
Arising from the current debate on abortion in the United States, it is not uncommon to hear from some quarters that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on abortion is more nuanced and liberal than many of the members of the Church would like. There are many today who argue that the Church’s position on abortion is far more liberal and permissive than most members would recognize. They could be more wrong, but they certainly do not get it right.
The Church’s section on abortion from the Handbook of Instructions reads, in full:
The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
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.
Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline.
As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.
Right from the outset, the policy of the Church is that abortion is either a killing, or something like unto it, and the command is clearly not to do either. We are then told that the Church is squarely against abortions for personal or social convenience, which appears to be the vast majority of abortions performed in the country today.
Then, it gets real. The next sentence does not say that “members should not” or “members are discouraged from” being involved in abortions. Instead, it says that “members MUST NOT submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion” (emphasis added). This sentence does not only refer to abortions for social convenience, but to all abortions, period.
Then, it lists three situations in which it is possible that an exception to this blanket condemnation of the practice exists. Note that these are not exceptions, these are merely possible exceptions, meaning that even in circumstances in which these conditions are applicable, there is not a blanket permission granted. It is instructive that even in these possible exceptions, qualifying language is liberally included. The first possible exception, for instance, is not for rape and incest, but “forcible rape and incest.” Likewise, the second possible exception is not for when the life or health of the mother is threatened, but when the life or health of the mother is “in serious jeopardy.” And third, the possible exception regarding the health of the unborn is not just for any defect, but for severe defects “that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” This third possible exception does not seem, to this author, to justify at all abortion of children with possible complications that might cause their death in hours or days or weeks, because such children survive beyond birth despite it possibly being for only hours or days or weeks.[1]
The following paragraph drives these points home. There is no situation in which an abortion of any kind is rubber stamped as being excusable. At a minimum, all of the people responsible (which I take it to include the parents, but possibly all those that “submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage” the abortion) should have met with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer of the appropriateness of going forward. This is clearly not an individual decision, and by mentioning that the “persons responsible” should meet with their “bishops,” it is clear that more decision makers are intended to be at the table than just the pregnant woman.
While it is interesting that all those involved in abortions are potentially subject to discipline, the last sentence is the most chilling. This statement says that “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” There is not a lot of certainty in that statement, and it leaves open the possibility that those involved in abortion may not be able to fully repent and be forgiven. That alone should give anyone pause.
The unfaithful members of the Church largely ignore all of this. They misread the above policy statement by asserting that in cases of any rape, or where a pregnancy carries a high risk of the loss of the mother’s life, or some fetal defects as valid reasons to get an abortion per LDS policy. One wonders if they actually read the policy when you hear this.
Instead, we often hear two basic arguments in favor of abortion rights from the willfully ignorant. The first is based on a flawed reasoning of when the soul enters the body, or when a living thing becomes a living person. Her second is based on to what extent Church doctrine allows for the legislation of morality.
In support of her first argument, some argue that spirits aren’t tied to their bodies until the very last minute, and God could just put them in another body anyway, so what’s the big deal? They lean on 3 Nephi 1:13 to indicate that “the spirit enters the body soon before birth.” I saw one recently argue that “Mormons [who] call abortion murder [use] theological hyperbole.” I find this less than persuasive. The Lord tells Nephi in 3 Nephi 1:13 that “on the morrow come I into the world,” and these proponents of abortion rights assume that if the Lord was telling Nephi this that His Spirit could not possibly have been inhabiting His body in utero. This is nonsense. First, we read in Luke 1 that John the Baptist, while in utero, recognized Mary, then pregnant with Jesus, and lept within the womb, long before the night before John the Baptist was to come into the world.
I also don’t accept that Christ’s spirit could not have been in his body in utero and simulatanously have spoken with Nephi on the American continent. Nearly every time I pray, I can be 100% sure that I am not in the physical proximity of my Father in Heaven to whom I am praying, and yet somehow He hears me, and often He responds. In an age in which I can pull out my cell phone and speak immediately to someone in Bethlehem right now, is it so hard to believe that Christ could have spoken to Nephi at that time while in utero. We are talking about a member of the Godhead, after all.
When it comes to the question of legislating morality, they do not actually look to what the Church has said, and what the Book of Mormon has specifically said, regarding this topic. The Family Proclamation addresses this head on, while “affirming the sanctity of life,” the Church calls upon “responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” and warns that “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” The Church encourages the passage of laws that would affirm the moral teachings of the Church.
Likewise, the Book of Mormon teaches very clearly that when the voice of the people desires that which is contrary to that which is right, “the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction.”[2] So, if only for selfish reasons, we should oppose laws liberalizing “abortion rights” in this country so as to avoid the wrath of God, or at least forestall it to some degree.
I will admit that it is a huge pet peeve of mine when unfaithful members of the Church purposely misunderstand or misstate the Church’s very clear position on abortion, which can be summarized as:
Abortion is a sin. It is always a sin. There are limited situations in which it is possible, perhaps, maybe, that one could be excused for doing it, but you better be darn sure that God told you it is alright in your case, because we are not even sure that you can repent and be forgiven of the sin of abortion.
To explain the Church’s position in any other way is to lie,
and perhaps to love that lie.
[1] What loving parents would deny a life to their child? A faithful member of the Church would understand that this child would be completely innocent and would meet his or her maker in a pure state, clean from any stain of sin from this world. Angela’s argument would deny that to such a child.
[2] Mosiah 29:27