When I hear Latter-day Saints declaring they are pro-choice and support abortion I am baffled. There is almost no topic that the Church has been clearer on than abortion. The Brethern have even dismantled talking points for the abortion movement in general conference talks, devotionals, and ensign articles.
It truly baffled me that people could hear and know what the Church teaches on one hand, and then do the exact opposite of it on the other hand. It brings to mind Luke 6:46, where the Lord decries hypocrisy with a stunning rebuke: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” How can people profess membership in a Church and flatly reject or ignore any teaching they don’t like?
That is when it hit me, the reason so many members ignore the words of the Prophets might not be because of actual contempt, but it might be due to ignorance. Most of the hallmark addresses on abortion were given right after Roe V. Wade back in the 1970s and ’80s and since then, the Church has grown in size by over 500%!!
So, with that context, I want to present to you the various dismantling of pro-choice arguments by the Prophets and Apostles I have come across in my studies of the Church. These are not random books or statements, All these quotes come from official Church publications and have their citations! So, without any further adieu, here are 5 pro-choice arguments that the Prophets and Apostles have totally destroyed.
“My Body My Choice.”
The most repeated line by those who advocate abortion is the notion that it is a woman’s body, and therefore having an abortion is purely her choice. For the rebuttal of this argument, I defer to a heart surgeon and Prophet, President Russell M. Nelson:
Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices.
To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action.
So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action.
The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality.
Russell M. Nelson “Reverence for Life” General Conference, Apr. 1985
It is a matter of agency!
Advocates for abortion often clamor that “It is about choice!” Sadly, often even Latter-day Saints fall into this trap and support abortion because they don’t want to infringe on the agency of others. For this talking point, I defer to the Prophet, Russell M. Nelson:
When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.
As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method.
Russell M. Nelson “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless” Ensign, Oct. 2008
Birth Defects!
Another common argument is that abortion is needed when the baby will suffer from birth defects. The argument is that it is unjust to force people to have a special needs child. I defer to both President James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson for the rebuttal of this logic:
Some justify abortions because the unborn may have been exposed to drugs or disease and may have birth defects. Where in all the world is the physically or mentally perfect man or woman? Is life not worth living unless it is free of handicaps? Experience in working with handicapped children would suggest that human nature frequently rises above its impediments.
James E. Faust “The Sanctity of Life” General Conferemce, Apr. 1975
Some argue for abortion because a malformed child may result. The harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy are real. … If one is to be deprived of life because of potential for developing physical problems, consistency would dictate that those who already have such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. Continuing, then, those who are either infirm, incompetent, or inconvenient should be eliminated by those in power. Such irreverence for life is unthinkable!
Russell M. Nelson “Reverence for Life” General Conference, Apr. 1985
“I am pro-life personally, but I don’t want to force others, so I vote pro-choice.” aka I don’t want to legislate morality
A common belief among progressive Latter-day Saints is that they can be personally pro-life, but still support pro-choice legislation. Often they claim that they don’t want to legislate their morality on others, and they then use this as justification to support abortion publically while claiming piety and fidelity to our pro-life doctrine. For this rebuttal, I yield to the acclaimed Judge and Apostle Dallin H. Oaks:
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.
Dallin H. Oaks “Weightier Matters” Ensign, Jan. 2001
What about Rape and Incest??
When a discussion about abortion goes sideways for those advocating abortion they often pull out rape, incest, and the life of the mother to justify abortion in all cases. Not even addressing how this is using rape victims for political gain, I defer to both President Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson who have both dismantled this argument.
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. Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice
Dallin H. Oaks “Weightier Matters” Ensign, Jan. 2001
Another sympathetic concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The tragedy of this despoilment is compounded because, in such relationships, freedom of choice is denied the woman who is innocently involved.
But less than 3 percent of all abortions are performed for these two reasons. The other 97 percent are performed for what may be termed “reasons of convenience.”
Russell M. Nelson “Reverence for Life” General Conference, Apr. 1985
Therefore What?
Now that you know the clear teachings of the Church on the topic of abortion—that not only should we advocate for life in our personal lives, but our professional, and civic lives as well—There is but one question: When you stand before Christ to be judged and the topic of the unborn is addressed, will you hear, “Well done!” Or will you hear Him rebukingly ask, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
It is my prayer that we will be counted among the faithful. That we will act with fidelity to the words of the prophets and the revealed truths of the gospel! That we will fight to protect and defend the unborn! And by so doing, when we stand to be judged hear the Lord tell us, “Well Done, thou good and faithful servant… Enter into the joy of the Lord.”
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
If you liked this article, you will enjoy these too!
