Sunday, December 14, 2008

Is Abortion Murder?

As I was reviewing some of my older posts I noticed that someone had made an additional comment on my post about abortion. Dan commented on the question of abortion being equivalent to murder. As he also pointed out that was not the point of that post. The point of that post was to show that the argument of the pro-life movement (that abortion should be illegal) is not required in order to be in harmony the current position of the LDS church. There are many reasons why someone could believe that abortion should be illegal; equating it with murder is only one. And as I will to show below it is not a very good one.

Is abortion murder?

This is one of the standard arguments used by the far right in their attempts to eliminate access to abortion. It is an almost purely emotional argument, one that sounds good as a bumper sticker or a sound bite and one that collapses under any level of careful scrutiny. And it is one that, for members of the church, skirts perilously close to false doctrine. In an issue such as this it is vital that we not be lead astray by emotional, but indefensible, arguments.

Mormonism provides us with two main arguments against equating murder and abortion.

If we are to equate abortion with murder we need to first understand what murder is. For the purpose of this discussion we can call it the willful destruction of innocent human life. Mormon doctrine (see D&C 88:15 and Moses 3:7) defines the soul as the union of the physical body and the spirit. Implicitly, death is the permanent separation of the body and the spirit. Therefore, for abortion to be murder it must cause the permanent separation of the spirit from the body.

The Mormon doctrine of the pre-existence is a belief that every person who has ever lived, or will ever live, lived before they were born (or conceived) in “heaven” with God as the father of our spirits. This doctrine, relatively unique in Christian theology, implies that life does not begin at conception and that a vital part of what makes a person a unique individual is not involved with the physical container, or body, at all. Therefore, unlike fundamentalist Christian theology, the moment of conception is not the moment of the creation of human life. Human life begins when the spirit and the body are connected into a soul, the destruction of which would constitute murder.

While I personally have heard anecdotal evidence that would suggest that this does not occur until sometime after conception, the only way (according to Mormon doctrine) that we could know when a body and a spirit unite to become a soul would be by revelation to a prophet and president of the church. The existence of biological indicators such as a functioning heart or rudimentary brain waves cannot be taken as definite indicators that a spirit and body have been permanently united. They only imply that the physical vessel that the spirit will inhabit is beginning its biological functions.

As far as I can determine (and if anyone can find any additional information I would be grateful) Brigham Young made one of the only statements regarding when the spirit and body are united, and then only in passing (others have also referred to this statement):

The disposition, the will, the spirit, when it comes from heaven and enters the tabernacle, is as pure as an angel. The spirit from the eternal worlds enters the tabernacle at the time of what is termed quickening, [the time that the mother can begin to feel the movement of the fetus or about the start of the second trimester] and forgets all it formerly knew.
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 26 vols. [London: Latter-Day Saints Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6:333)

This by itself is certainly not definitive, but it points out that to assume that life begins at conception is to venture beyond revealed doctrine.

The second argument against equating abortion with murder comes from the church’s statement on abortion, reproduced here on 12/13/08:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.


[I’m indebted to Ronald Dworkin for the structure of the following arguments. While he considers the question of abortion as murder from a constitutional perspective, the form of the arguments are at least as compelling when applied to the above statement by the Church.]

The essential problem with equating abortion with murder and the position of the church on abortion is one of integrity. If we are to consider that abortion is murder then we must treat it as such with all that this implies. The best way too clearly see the results of treating abortion as murder is to replace the term abortion with the idea of a mother killing her newborn, which is indisputably murder. The idea being that if abortion is murder then it should be treated the same way the murder of an infant would be. Below are the results of taking the abortion as murder argument and applying it to the Church’s statement. It will quickly become clear that such an argument cannot stand.

The Church allows that an abortion may be preformed when the “Pregnancy results from rape or incest.” The idea that you could kill a day old infant because her conception was the result of her mother’s rape is truly horrifying, yet if we equate abortion with murder that is what this statement would mean.
The Church allows for an abortion if “A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.” If we equate abortion with murder then we are saying that the Church allows for the murder of an innocent to save the life of another. Applying this concept with integrity would be the equivalent of allowing a mother to kill her child to harvest his organs if that was what was required to save her life. Again a horrifying idea.
The third exception is when “A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” Can we image that the Church would countenance killing a child merely because she is terminally ill and her life will end in a few months anyway? Of course not.
The Church states that these exceptions should only be used after revelation, from God to the mother. If we accept that abortion is murder then we are saying that a woman can receive revelation from God to murder her children.

Not only is it clear that the Church does not consider abortion the equivalent of murder, but to declare it as such is to accuse the Church of approving murder.

I believe that the reason that people are drawn to the idea of equating abortion with murder is because it is a clear, shocking, and simple statement on the value of a fetus. Such a position values a fetus as the equivalent of a newborn child. And unfortunately the pro-choice movement has done to little in their arguments to address the value of a fetus; this void has left the fundamentalists with the only statement of value that is easily understood, and gives them the standing to imply that to not value a fetus as equivalent to a newborn is to not value it at all. Such an argument is both absurd, and contrary to the stated position of the Church. I believe that we can still value even the potential for life incredibly highly without the need to equate its destruction with murder.

10 comments:

danielle said...

I've noticed that you like to marginalize people by stating that their points of view sound like "a sound bite" or a "bumper sticker." It is okay, in my book, for people to feel what they feel without being in love with their own thought processes behind it. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about debating this subject. All I can conclude is that you are trying to show that you are a thinker, unlike so many of us "sheep". I won't even go into what I see are some serious flaws in your reasoning. Plus, a lot of your argument is simply a semantics game. Disappointing. Very college classroom.

danielle said...

Chris,
I have to leave another comment. I've haven't been able to get off my mind (the last 20 minutes or so) why you would feel so strongly enough about abortion to make another post. It can't be that you are some kind of intellectual snob, which is what I alluded to. I remember you too well from the Ricks days for that. I sort of think it is because that recent Ensign article debunked your freedom of choice argument, and now you are have found a new avenue (is it "murder-murder" or just not very nice) to remain liberal and shocking on the subject.

danielle said...

Alright, one more comment. You might be indulging me, but this is a subject I feel (yes, emotions involved) very strongly about. I have to point out what I think is a serious and saddening flaw in your reasoning (and I mean that with no sarcasm intended). I am not referring to the first half of your entry concerning when life begins. That subject has been debated for years by theologians, scientists, etc. I am referring the second half where you conclude that the church (leaders, prophet, God?) must see abortion as more allowable, and in utero life as less valuable because they allow for the three well known exceptions. To take the life of a newborn baby would be horrifying indeed, and no one would ever advocate for that. Fortunately, no one MUST ever make that decision. Pregnancy, however, is a unique situation, and if the life of one is gravely and threateningly affecting the life of the other (and this includes rape and the trauma of delivering a dead baby), a decision must be made. In other words, there is no way around it. So, I believe they allow for these exceptions, and only rarely and in consultation with God, because they must, not because they can based on some value scale. Where I think we can find common ground is on how one views and treats those that have had abortions. I have an extended relative who has had four, last time I checked. I don't stare at her with puritanically pursed lips, waiting to scream "burn the murderer!" While I find it just as horrifying to vacuumn suck out an unborn as traditionally kill another person, I know that she honestly doesn't. I know that if she would allow more light into her life, she would see this area more clearly. Well, I have finally said all I can on the subject, although I could go into terms like manslaughter and first degree and third degree murder, and if these terms are somehow a reflection on the value of the life that has been taken. But then, I would be doing that college classroom thing I got so sick of my senior year, and I am sure that three comments are overkill. Again, subject I feel strongly about.

Chris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...

Thanks for the comments, Danielle. You are probably right, I was belittling the argument equating abortion with murder and should not have (I still don’t agree with it, but that is no excuse.) As to why I had to talk about abortion again, well the whole point of my blog is in my intro (it explains why I do this at all.) As for why now and why like this its in the opening paragraph of the post. Thanks for the comments. Keep ‘em comin’.

danielle said...

Chris,
You are a great sport to put up with all of my comments. I'm afraid I can get somewhat...uh...worked up when I'm debating politics (or anything, really) Although, I can see you sitting there with a big smile the more keyed up and condescending and personally attacking I get. (My husband laughs when I get that way, and it makes me so mad in the moment) Anyway, I could never be a sports fan. I'd have to be medicated.

Hunter Family said...

Hey Chris! Mwahahaha! Danielle and I together! Hehe..I make myself laugh...

I honestly don't have a lot of data or quotes or statistics, etc. to rebut or try to change your mind...this is how I feel though. I do agree that in the eyes of the church abortion is not murder (the consequences and repentance process is different, if I am correct), and I think we as members ought to be careful to say that it is murder unless/until we hear a prophet say that as well. I DO think that abortion ought to be a state matter (as it was pre Roe v. Wade) and it shouldn't be a federal government issue. I am concerned that it appears that you hold pre born babies to a lesser standard of respect of life than those that have been born. To me a fetus is a human baby, or at least has the potential to become a human baby if we don't invervene or interefere with God's work. We don't know at which millisecond the fetus is granted full access to soul, we know from a scientific standpoint that it is alive and that it is human...do a DNA if you don't believe me (okay, that was snarky, I'm sorry).

Anyway, I'm not really good at saying what I think online, just mainly that while I don't think that abortion is murder I do think it should be illegal with the exceptions given that are in line with the church's. The church doesn't have to explicitly state that they are in favor for or against such laws for me to be in favor or opposed to those laws. Just because the church hasn't come out and said, "this law is wrong" doesn't mean that it's right either...

Brett - Rachel B said...

I guess I'm starting to see the "point" of this whole liberal Mormon thing. I heard some talk recently (can't remember who or when) but it said "there is forgiveness even for abortion" and that kind of stuck with me. So that combined with the Abortion/murder thing helps me to know that yah, abortion is way bad and you're stripping another spirit brother or sister from their right to come to earth, but if it's done in ignorance, which it obviously is done, than it's more forgiveable than shooting joe shmoe who is an adult.

longest run on sentence ever?
I hope so.

i feel at peace with this posting. Also Danielle, you are cool.

Youngberg House said...

Hi Chris,

In the quote you posted from Brigham Young do you know where/when/by whom the clarification on the word quickening came?

...quickening, [the time that the mother can begin to feel the movement of the fetus or about the start of the second trimester]...

This is the heart of the debate. If these were Brigham Young's exact words why are they in parentheticals? If they are not his exact words who put them there and is passing them off as what the prophet intended?

Chris said...

Square brackets (like [these]) are the conventional way to add clarification to a quote. They let the reader know that the words inside are not part of the quote, but are from the person doing the quoting (me in this case.) In this case I decided to define the word quicken. It is an older term and is not used much any more. It is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “to reach the stage of gestation at which fetal motion is felt.” This time in the pregnancy is generally about the start of the second trimester. Thus my clarifications are accurate and help to explain to a modern reader the intent of Brigham Young’s quote.

Adding clarification in brackets is not attempting to pass off words as the prophets when they are not (that’s why they’re in brackets- to make it clear they are my words not his.)

It is clear from this statement that Brigham Young believed that the spirit enters the body at the time the mother begins to feel the fetus moving.