I think this topic distorts politics at the national level and that it absolutely doesn’t belong there

The Supreme Court deserves all the credit for that.

I personally will vote for strict standards on this…generally the same ones my church uses, allowing the procedure in some instances but banning abortions induced for convenience. I consider deliberately killing a viable fetus for reasons other than the health and safety of the mother to be absolutely wrong and that it is reasonable for states to put the unborn under equal protection.

I think this topic distorts politics at the national level and that it absolutely doesn’t belong there, nor should federal tax dollars be given to research that results in the destruction of fertilized human eggs, embryos, fetuses, whatever. Whether or not such research is to be done needs to be regulated at the state level. That is my belief concerning the Constitution’s limitations of the role of the federal government.

Maybe that’s a cop-out because I stand to benefit from this kind of research? The research will be done somewhere.

I’ll finish reading the entire comment in a minute, but I can’t let that statement go unchallenged. To cut all husbands and fathers out of the entire decision-making process in all cases simply is wrong.

I think too often as Mormons we hear the phrase \”elective abortion\” and we picture ambitious career women (with all the negative connotations associated with that image in Mormon culture) who are necessarily callous and masculine and have no qualms about killing fetuses if it helps them stay on track in the corporate world. Personally, I think this image is a straw man–we condemn these women, but they mostly don\’t exist. Most women who get abortions are poor and poorly educated, and get them out of extreme desperation, not because they are somehow amoral, unfeeling creatures. I think the fact that most pro-life people (Mormon and non-Mormon) have this image in their minds reveals a persistent strain of misogyny in the larger American culture.

There are plenty of circumstances where I could feel empathy for a woman who wanted an abortion even if it fell under the \”elective\” category. How about a woman stuck in an emotionally and physically abusive marriage to an alcoholic, who has three or four children already, who works full-time and then some but who can barely make ends meet, who gets pregnant only because her birth control pills fail? Technically, her decision to abort wouldn\’t be based on rape, incest, or a severe threat to her life, which are the only standards most Mormons view as acceptable. Maybe, though, she knows that another child would mean she wouldn\’t have enough money to pay the mortgage or buy groceries. Maybe another child would make it that much harder to leave her abusive husband and save her other children from his vicious temper. Maybe abortion seems like the lesser of two evils in her mind. The point is that I wouldn\’t want to take the option of a legal, safe abortion away from her. It\’s her body, it\’s her fetus, it\’s her future, it\’s her decision. Do I think we (both as a church and as a government) need to strengthen the social supports that women like her have available to enable them to choose otherwise? Absolutely. But ultimately it\’s the woman\’s decision.

(Speaking of conservative hypocrisies, here\’s one I don\’t understand: Why do most people who want to make abortion unconditionally illegal also want to cut federal funding to impoverished women who are otherwise unable to support the children they would be forced to bear? If you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why abandon those children once they are born? A poor woman who chooses to have an abortion is a monster, but a poor woman who chooses to have a baby while on government assistance is a \”welfare queen\”? It just goes back to the underlying misogyny thing again….)

If a legal pro-choice position means that medically safe abortions must be available in certain circumstances, than I think most members of the church using this legal definition would probably agree with the pro-choice position.

The problem occurs because many people believe that the moral reasons for an abortions should be defined much more broadly (i.e. the comfort and happiness of the Mother). Thus, for these persons the legal pro-choice position means not only the theoretical availability of safe abortions for cases in which the agency of mothers has been compromised, but also expands those circumstances under which abortion can be justified. What I am trying to argue is that there are many legal pro-choice positions of which the Mormon outlook is only one.

In the political realm, the pro-choice label is used as a blanket identifier for many of the various possible pro-choice legal positions which creates a tone of ambiguity about whether a Mormon can politically espouse the pro-choice position. The pro-life political label also can refer to a variety of legal and moral philosophies. Although these political labels are purposefully ambiguous, individuals often interpret these political positions using their own moral or legal lens instead of finding out what this referent really means to a particular candidate or party. I think that arguments can be made that Mormons can be either pro-choice or pro-life, but that it depends on which of the various moral, legal, or political positions to which you are referring.

Prior to being active in the church, I was Pro-Choice. Now I’m an active member, and I’m still Pro-Choice.

Personally I think abortion is wrong, but I think everyone has the right to make the decision whether or not abortion is right or wrong for them.

You’re right: it’s all about where to draw the line. But allow me to clarify my position by basically reiterating what I said in my very first comment to this thread. I think abortion is morally wrong, and I would like to see the number of abortions drastically reduced. But I do not think legal bans on abortion are the best means for accomplishing this goal. (And, as noted, I think the immorality of abortion does not necessitate the illegality of abortion.) I believe enacting policies that seek to increase education and social awareness (especially among adolescents), to eradicate poverty, to provide decent healthcare, to encourage adoption and good use of birth control, etc. — these are the means that will most effectively reduce abortions. Slapping a legal ban on something for which there is a high demand has never worked (cf. drugs, alcohol, illegal immigrants, etc.). The answer is to come up with ways to lower the demand.

As for the whole “erring on the side of caution”…your argument here seems to consider only the possibility of ending a “human” life. What about the reality of impinging on the woman who is carrying that possible “human” life? Seems to me that we ought to be cautious about requiring (by govt force) a woman to endure 9 months of unwanted physical strain and hardship, no? Like I said, I think abortion is morally wrong — but I’m uncomfortable with imposing legal bans when it’s likely that there isn’t actual “human” life involved (at least in the first six weeks or so), and it’s certain that the ban will have an adverse effect on the woman. I’d like to be at least as cautious about restricting a person’s freedom to choose as I am about “taking the life” of a zygote.

Because there is no clear definition regarding when a fetus is “alive” and when it should be considered a “person”, it would seem wise to assume that it takes place earlier rather than later… that is, unless you don’t have a problem killing someone who has reached, by your definition, the status of “person.” To do otherwise would be to “side against caution.” In other words, we give the benefit to the fetus of defining him/her as alive earlier to ensure we don’t destroy life. (Hope that’s a bit clearer.)

I am assuming that by “consciousness” you mean “self awareness,” yes? (Your last comment clarified this. I was unclear earlier as to what you meant.) If that is your defining line, then how late is it prudent to terminate “life” (loosely defined)? I don’t imagine that passing through the birth canal has an instant effect regarding this. If abortion shortly before birth is permissible, what about a few minutes following birth? A few hours? Days? We all draw lines. The difference is largely a matter of where we place them.

Your decision on the issue, was what I meant; deciding where you stand. Or, if you prefer, a hypothetical decision regarding a hypothetical pregnancy/abortion. I say “guess” because we don’t really have a way of measuring the presence of a spirit in a fetus. Any position taken must therefore hinge to some extent on guessing when life begins, which leads us back to the initial question regarding caution.