If god gave us free will and the ability to believe in him or to live in darkness and delusion, then why should an issue like abortion be a law when it seems like we should clearly be able to express that free will god gave us and suffer the consequences if we so choose.

How will we ever learn if its not up to us to make the right choice? Do you learn anything if you are forced to comply?

So, why should abortion be outlawed based on this line of reasoning?

Personally, I believe in planned parenthood and abstaining if your not ready to bring a child in this world...

I totally agree with abstinence or, at least, planned parenthood (or adoption), but don't think abortion should be legal because its infringing on others rights once a little one is formed.... We mama's pretty much give up our bodies for a while once that happened. We are made to procreate within a family unit.

You gonna send me your near death experience soon Gary?

I will Jeanie, but it requires a lot of focus and time as the details were extraordinarily complex compared to everyday life. I didn't forget though.

Looking forward to it. You can consider it a journal... : )(Save it as one...I email a friend in AK that way - she sends me her journals to stay in touch).

Based on your line of reasoning here, then why should any murder be outlawed? We could also legalise child molestation, since we're violating free will by making it illegal are we not? Just consider the ramifications of your statements. The use of free will (for good or bad) should not make something suddenly "ok" or "lawful" just because someone has decided to use their free will wrongly.

Consider that the unborn child is as human as you and myself, why then should we (as adults) have the law on our side to protect OUR life and then a "choice" when it comes to the child who cannot even defend him or herself? Nor does he/she have a voice to do so.

Since God Himself has condemned such acts, as well as others, and has warned greatly against those who would scandalise his "little ones" (it would be better they had a millstone tied around their neck), do you really think those that stand on the sidelines and "ok" such things will escape?

They shalt not kill is one of His commandments, we all should stand up against evil, even if we cannot "stop" all those that are going to do it. It's a godsend however to have laws, so that we are at least mostly protected and there is some justice for it on earth and protection to society.

Now, if we can stand up for these things for ourselves, we should even moreso when it comes to the most vulnerable of human beings. We may have "free will" to violate those commandments/laws, as many do, but what does that have to do with "Okaying" it and legalising such atrocity? yes people can and often do violate and misuse their free will for evil, but legalising it? I wonder how you'd feel to discover that nobody will go to jail if they murder you or a member of your family. They were in fact, only exercising their "free will".

I'm amazed at people's sudden disinterest in murder, when it comes to the unborn child. It's almost like they're removing a "growth" or a "mole". Do you think these babies are disposable? In the bible it states how precious we are, even in the womb and how God thought of us even before we were conceived.

If you have actually sat on this forum and read the posts properly and viewed the pictures and continued to come to this conclusion, I must say I'm surprised and disheartened. Because in all honestly, I don't know how anybody, especially those with a belief in God could even CONSIDER such things made legal after viewing and seeing those horrific realities. No it does not mean you can stop a person from doing what they do, but legalising murder, particualrly of an innocent just shows the degradation of a society who has become blind.

It is not just what it does to the Mother and the abortionists, who will have to answer to God, but the act itself and what is done to the baby is unspeakable. It just astounds me that anybody can actually remain so blind to it, but it happens. Eventually people will begin to accept it as the "norm", particuarly after it's become legal.

I suppose I see what your saying Bex, but honestly death isn't scary unless you are afraid of losing something. After you have experiences in life you become attached to things and death seems like a terrible thing...but if you have faith its not scary at all because you know god can never be taken away from you and that is the only thing that truly matters...then its just a transition to something greater.

I don't see death as the end and I think god would guide those little babies souls to where they would need to be if somebody did have an abortion.

GD: I don't see death as the end and I think god would guide those little babies souls to where they would need to be if somebody did have an abortion.

Jeanie: Honestly I agree with this GD. In eternal terms these babies are going to be ok... And those babies spirits may even have the chance to go be born to others.. We aren't quite sure how that works. But it still shouldn't give people the right to do it legally. It is a canker on their own souls if nothing else... It could open up killing old people or those thought unable to contribute to society as the mentally handicapped. Just not our right....

I found an article (for a talk?) written by Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the Church of Jeus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which goes into the whole free agency issue as it pertains to abortion which puts it in perspective... He was a lawyer before called to be an apostle (which is full time work for the church as a witness of Christ).

Quote:

My next example in this message on weightier matters is the role of choice, or agency.

Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency—the right to choose—is a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of Revelation calls a “war in heaven.” This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life (see Rev. 12:7–9).

But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to use it—to choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal.

Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. Many do not understand that important fact. We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.

Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made. “Choice” can even become a slogan to justify one particular choice. For example, today one who says “I am pro-choice” is clearly understood as opposing any legal restrictions upon a woman’s choice to abort a fetus.

More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.

Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals.

In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. 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. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.

In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.

For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. 1 Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.”

A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:

“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.

“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.

“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”

The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.

I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

Gawson, death is not the evil here. The baby is innocent and will go to God. Death in itself, is but a passing from this life to the next. "Dying" isn't the issue. Dying isn't a sin.

We are talking about an act of evil, so horrific that it almost defies belief. This is murder, it is not a baby simply "dying" of a disease or a miscarriage, it has had it's like intentionally (deliberatey) taken from it in a terrible manner. A manner that nobody would wish to go through. Even if the baby was "anethatised", it cannot be justified. The baby is a human being and taking a human being's life is murder. Nobody has the right to take another person's life except God Himself. Dying by natural causes is not the problem here. Death isn't even the problem. It's the act that brought it about.

An act that unless repented of, may lead to the death of the souls (as Christ clearly stated to us where such acts of evil would lead a person). Nothing is worse than that.

Gawson, death is not the evil here.

Abortion is a never ending issue.