Concerning the nature and purpose of sexual intercourse, intercourse serves many purposes. The popularity of various forms of contraception would indicate that most intercourse has little to do with desiring conception. I am glad that a lot of people take precautions. Looking up statistics on abortion the rate reduces where there is more reliable and accessible forms of contraception. I would also think the rates would reduce where there is less taboo against contraception.

Asia accounts for 59% of the world’s abortions, and Northern America only 3%. This is attributed to the enormous population in this region of the world. (The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide, By Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas ) So that is overlooked information, not from you particularly, but the thread in general. Maybe its because culturally, and legally Asian countries are different from North America. In other parts of the world the rate can be pretty high. While it might be tempting to condemn this as evil, it could be that there is less education, and less access to reliable forms of contraception. Some cultures have official government policies of reducing population by any means, and there could also be a cultural norm to do so.

I strongly believe that those who oppose abortion under all conditions should work with the majority of Americans to reduce the incidence of abortion, rather than attempting to outlaw the practice altogether. At present, they are letting the ideal become the enemy of the good.

I appreciate the eye-opener on ‘pro life’ legislation denying parental rights for midwifery, home births, etc but I find a bright dividing line between legislation meant to prevent ‘intentional termination of life’ and legislation meant to simply ‘decrease potential dangers’. I feel that sometimes people confuse libertarianism with anarchism. My positive view of ‘libertarian ideals’ encompasses trying to reduce undue government interference without eliminating government and governance entirely. I find that quite consistent with the hopes and views of most of the founders of the U.S.

I understand quite fully how — despite Ron Paul’s serious libertarian mindset in general — he would welcome a return of the abortion question to local governments where he has expressed open hope that many would legally restrict it more than it is currently. He’s not against legislating and restricting it because he feels so strongly about the rights to life of an unborn child *before* it leaves the womb. This, from his decades of practice in pre-natal childcare and actual delivering of babies – including so called ‘preemies’.

The difficulty is determining where to place a legalistic and arbitrary ‘bright line’ that determines when that child should have any rights at all. It’s necessarily a moving target (there is no end-all, be-all scientific conclusion on when ‘potential human life’ is considered ‘actual human life’) but increasing numbers of recent polls indicate that most thinkers on the subject believe that the line should be moved far back from the simple ‘full, live emergence from the womb’ rule which apparently is what defines it now.

Charles, Jim, Jeffrey T,

I don’t think legal restrictions on abortion necessarily need to cross into the allegedly ‘impossible to distinguish’ personal religious motivation sphere. If, for instance, the Federally mandated support for abortions was over-ruled and some localities were to choose to legislate that ‘abortions after 12 weeks’ [for example] were banned except in the case of certain contingencies such as ectopic pregnancies (proven to be non-viable because of implantation in the fallopian tubes; certain to greatly endanger the life of the mother) then the ‘religiously motivated’ incest and rape arguments could potentially drop out — leaving only the reasonable contingencies to preserve the rights of the mother’s actual life to work out. [In practice, what I've observed from religious motivated language regarding 'rape and incest' is that these groups want to preserve the right to end pregnancies in the earliest days immediately following such an attack and way, way before the majority of said groups consider the pregnancy incontrovertibly 'actual human life' . . . thus I don't find the inconsistency that Jeffrey has considered to be universal -- or even that common]

In other words, I think changes to current law on abortion to more fully consider the rights of an unborn child to be entirely reasonable. I would strongly disagree that the current laws are the most reasonable and most appropriate use of government. The real difficulty is where to move the legal line, but most are in agreement — due to more common 3D imaging of unborn children, more awareness of the norm of successful ‘pre-term’ births [they come out living, breathing, interacting, and with all their fingers, toes, and neural systems months before current law considers them actual viable 'humans' if they are still 'in utero'], and many other reasons — that where the line is now is simply *not* reasonable or appropriate.

The belief that sexual intercourse should be solely for purposes of pro-creation and that it should be restricted to individuals in a legal and/or religious marriage is a religious tenet, not a moral or ethical one. It is common to male-dominated religious groups and they are free to enforce that value on their members. When they enlist the force of government to impose those beliefs on others, they misuse government and their religion as well.

You addressed all of my same concerns with pro-life legislation (although, I too, am very pro-life). Something to really think about.

For me, that also makes it very hard to encode an abortion ban into law. I think the widespread use of abortion is evil; but I don’t entirely know if such practice should be within the jurisdiction of law. It certainly shouldn’t be within the jurisdiction of federal law; even those who view abortion as murder should realize that, because murder itself is not within the jurisdiction of federal law.

Various forms of contraception, abortion and even infanticide have existed for thousands of years, long before Nazis ever came into being.

Issues of race, chromosomal disorders, health problems, or money, career, relational problems are interesting stats, but don’t really address the LDS objection to any reason for abortion.

Most pro-life legislation has been fought and won over the principle of ‘fetal life rights’. The problem comes when government has to assign a guardian ad litem to oversee that the un-born’s ‘life rights’ are not violated. In connection of birth, the practicing OB/GYN is generally given at litem power to preside over the well-being of the baby. This, however, has several severe problems. Two of the leading problems are as follows: First, the doctors are then legally obliged to work on behalf of the baby before the mother. Second, the doctors are staring down the barrel of a malpractice suit on every birth. In the United States, C-section rates are over 30% when even such liberal organizations like the WHO say that this number should be less than 10% (absolutely no higher than 15%). Why this discrepancy in OB/GYN care in the United States? Because C-section operations are considered the ‘last case scenario’ — the very last thing a doctor can do for a patient. This keeps their malpractice payout very low.

When we enact pro-life legislation, we have to wonder what the consequences on parental rights will be if we stipulate that the unborn legally has life-rights. Already, several court cases are trying to ban home-birth and birthing center births because these are active danger-zones for the unborn. After all, the unborn have life rights that the state is bound to protect — even against the wishes of the parents who want to lovingly welcome their child into this life at home or at a birth-center. The argument is that the hospitals are the safest institutions for birth — and if the state must protect the life-interest of the un-born, then the state must regulate where such births occur. If the ad litem is generally the practicing OB/GYN (who looks out more for the life of the unborn than that of the parent), then the state must necessarily require that all births occur in the hospital. Most of the prohibition of home and birth center births come under the pro-life legislation. In Utah, pro-life legislation — granting life rights to the unborn fetus — is shutting down birth centers and birth suites. Furthermore, home-birth and midwifery is on the chopping block as well — all based on pro-life legislation.

Birth isn’t the only place where pro-life legislation is threatening parental rights. Extensions of these arguments have been applied to newborns and small children. Child Protective Services (CPS) has been given massive powers throughout different states, all based on the ‘life-rights’ arguments that are argued for in pro-life legislation.

My point in all of this is that we should consider (or reconsider) all of the consequences to those things we emotionally support. We should never give government power in one area if, in the process of it carrying out its duty, it must necessarily violate the life, liberty, and property of the people in another area. We must accept that there are certain duties that the government cannot necessarily act in while preserving all life, liberty, and property — and that we must not, in order to preserve all of our liberties, accept a little infringe on our liberty and freedom in order to gain a utilitarian outcome.

There are species of animals on earth that kill and eat their own progeny. Certain species of fish and lizards come to mind. People who study dinosaurs say that frequently occurred. Preying mantis females are known to eat their mate, usually they start before the act of reproduction is fully complete.

I have seen beautiful swans that you think are just so innocent kill another one. Also little baby chicks pushing the other eggs or smaller siblings out of the nest. I am not so sure that morality as humanity sees it exists in nature. Instinct is not the same as morality.

About the Human code concerning killing ones own children. Its known to have occurred in human history, and not as a part of communism or what not. One example goes back to prehistoric times.

“Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23-50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.”

I found that from a wiki entry about infanticide, it includes a citation to support that statement, I haven’t confirmed it. Its amazing to me that people could have consciously engineered population control on themselves that long ago.

The article goes on in depth about reasons why it occurred in various forms. The thought mostly seems to be around limiting population, poverty, shortages of food etc… Some cultures preffered to selectively kill infant girls as that had a stronger effect on limiting population growth. Also the increased fighting for the limited number of females by males also reduced population through murder. Its difficult stuff to read really.

Isn’t there a believe among LDS people that there is plenty of room on earth for everyone? That there isn’t really limited resources? That seems to be on conflict with most information on the topic.

I want the issue to just go back to the states. I may support a state ban on abortion, but I don’t think the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction over the issue, except via constitutional amendment.

A question to pro-lifers: do you want a federal BAN on abortion (the opposite of roe v wade) or do you want the decision to go back to the states?

There needs to be a serious racheting down of the rhetoric by those who claim to be pro-life because their inflammatory doctrines provide the slightly deranged in their following with every incentive to commit murder.

Instead of calling a woman’s desire to control her own body and her own destiny “the right to murder inconvenient people”, those who feel strongly about terminating pregnancies should work with others to understand and alleviate the conditions that make abortion a necessary choice for some women. But no, we find the anti-abortion forces are also anti-contraception, against an expression of human sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage, against sex education in the schools, and against programs that would lift women and men out of poverty. These are religious views, not a concern with human life.

In addition the organization objects to the use of imagery or speech which compares the holocaust to emotionally sway the public in controversial topics. For example the use of PETA in comparing the death of animals for food or other purposes and the holocaust.

“We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

The protection of life being the standard, there seems to be little question when an abortion may be appropriate, and not appropriate.

My view is simple but firm. I am not a philosopher so I won’t go there. I’m almost not a political expert or even near it… so I won’t try that one, either.

I do however have my faith–my belief in God and my will to follow Him. I know, because of my life and my experiences, which no one can disprove, that God lives. I know that He is my Father, that He created all things. And I know that life is sacred.

A fetus is part of creation. It is a baby waiting to be born. As a mother of two, I have felt life form inside of me– and it is nothing short of a miracle. It is something to be awed, to be reverenced, and to be respected.

I believe creation is sacred and sexual intimacy is a power intended by God to be used between a husband and wife to strengthen marriage and, of course, create life.

At-will abortion IS wrong. It is wrong to kill an unborn child except in extreme, carefully weighed cases (rape, incest, risk of health to the mother). The killing of an unborn child just because it is “convenient” is akin to murder.

I don’t think women who have abortions are bad people. I do, however, think they are misguided and making a tragic mistake, one that they will have to face up to before God. Abortion hurts the unborn child, true. But it also hurts the woman who has the abortion.

God has laws. His creations, nature all around us, revolve around laws. There are things that are right and things that are wrong. At-will abortion is wrong.

I know my belief cannot PROVE to anyone to side with me, but I guess that wasn’t my point. I just wanted to get it out there that I believe in life because of my faith– because God is God; His laws are eternal; and He respects life.

For the best article I think has ever been written about abortion, read this.