Guest post by Jessica Spackman, the President of Latter-day Saints for Life.
Voices and Choices
“I’m pro-choice because I believe in agency.”
“Women should be free to choose.”
“I’m personally pro-life, but other people should have the ability to choose abortion.”
I hear these comments all the time from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many loud voices popularize these claims; even prominent Latter-day Saint voices rally behind them.
Because Latter-day Saints believe in agency, right?
For this and any such critical issue, we have to turn to the right sources. I believe it’s most important to hear the voice of the Lord and those who speak for Him on the earth today, for the “words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.” (2 Nephi 32:3)
Searching for answers about how to understand “pro-choice” statements like the ones above, I found this from an Apostle of the Lord:
“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.”
Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional, February 9, 1999
Rather than fall asleep to the magic “choice” spell, let’s face these pro-choice claims head-on, searching the words of the prophets and the voice of the Lord.
With logic and the Spirit, I hope to show you why it’s not in spite of agency but because of agency that Latter-day Saints are obligated to protect preborn life and oppose abortion.
Choice for mom and baby
Some Latter-day Saints say, “Agency is what the whole war in heaven was fought over! Taking away agency from women is letting Satan win!”
Yes, they are absolutely right—agency is exactly why we’re here.
Every one of us chose to come to earth.
Every baby chose to follow the Father and Jesus Christ, join a family, gain a body, live the mortal experience, challenges and all.
So often, when we speak of agency, only the mother’s agency is taken into account, but she’s not the only person involved.
“In recent years, many questions relate to the ‘choice’ to abort the life of a newly forming human being. Ironically, such ‘choice’ would deny that developing individual both life and choice.”
Russell M. Nelson, “Choices”, General Conference, October 1990
Choices Come with Consequences
And what about the mother’s agency?
The vast majority of mothers who have an abortion, to some degree, chose to have sex in the first place. (According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only about 1% of those who have abortions do so because they were raped.)
And just like every choice, that choice comes with potential consequences, natural consequences that were part of His design.
President Nelson uses the analogy of the astronaut to illustrate this.
“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.”
Russell M. Nelson, “Reverence for Life”, General Conference, April 1985
Women Should Be Free to Choose What?
To be able to properly discuss the topic at hand, we need to ask: What exactly is the woman choosing?
She is choosing abortion. She is choosing to deliberately end the life of her own child.
“Abortion is an evil, stark and real and repugnant, which is sweeping over the earth.”
Gordon B. Hinckley, “Walking in the Light of the Lord”, General Conference, October 1998
For me and many others, learning about what an abortion actually is changes the whole conversation. Abortion procedures typically involve starving, dismembering, poisoning, or otherwise brutally killing a living, separate human being. (Learn more about the reality of what an abortion actually is at abortionprocedures.com.)
We can’t shut down the conversation with the magic word “agency,” and we can’t throw “choice” as a trump card as license to do whatever we please.
Some Choices Hurt Others and Ought to Be Prevented
“Women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, even if I wouldn’t choose to.”
Would we say this about any other moral crime that hurts, even kills, another person?
What if someone said: “Women should really have the right to choose to physically abuse their toddlers,” or “I wouldn’t personally do it, but men should have the right to choose to mug people on the street,” or “It’s important that people have the right to choose to drink and drive.”
It sounds ridiculous—because it is.
It’s perfectly reasonable and even necessary for a decent, functional society to create social, religious, and legal limits to certain choices.
What is the difference between choices that are okay and those that aren’t?
It’s not an individual choice. When someone endangers the safety and lives of other innocent people, they ought to be prevented.
“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 was 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. “
Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign, October 2008
We Are Responsible to Use OUR Agency Righteously
While we’re on the topic of agency, I would be remiss to not mention the need for all Latter-day Saints to use their agency righteously regarding abortion.
What does this mean?
It’s not enough to sit on the sidelines and let other people talk about and deal with abortion. We have a role to play—in our families, in our Church, and in our communities/governments.
“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, October 2008
A Higher Perspective: Think Celestial
We have been so deceived by the word, “choice,” that Satan has practically shut down the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by turning that word around on us. He cheers that 73 million babies die every year through elective abortion as Christ’s Church hardly bats an eye.
So protect yourself against the magic “agency” spell.
There are many voices who speak into the abortion issue, from news anchors, politicians, family members, doctors, and even Latter-day Saint influencers. Many of these voices may say things that sound good—and some may accuse you of malice or ignorance if you don’t agree with them.
Go to the source of truth: God.
Pray for discernment. Study the scriptures with an open heart. Search general conference talks and other reliable Church sources. (Check out the free library at latterdaysaintsforlife.org/library.)
Then, when you encounter other voices, you’ll have the perspective to distinguish celestial principles from ones that are not of God.
You will be able to say that “being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for [me]. 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.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional, February 9, 1999.)
Jessica Spackman is the president of Latter-day Saints for Life and has been involved in the pro-life movement since 2020. A lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she served a full-time mission, earned a bachelor’s degree in English from Utah State University, and is happily sealed to her family in the temple. She recently moved from Utah to Missouri with her husband and 2 children. Jessica writes on religious topics and defends the family online.
Location: Independence, Missouri. (Travels to Utah a few times a year.)
We do not know when the Spirit enters the body. We do not know FULL STOP. Our entire reason to come to Earth is to experience life, I do not believe our Heavenly parents are cruel enough to deny us life as a “consequence” of another’s actions. Life is too important. If a fetus is aborted the spirit goes to another body. Because life hasn’t started. We are here to experience and we do not experience/remeber the womb. As a mother of 4 children I have carried and raised I can testify that motherhood is life altering and no one should make that decision except the mother and doctor. The only life at stake is the mother’s, everything else is a fetus with potential.
Church policy has always been that it is ok to prayer choose abortion if you are raped.
You can’t prove rape. Also, as a mother whose daughter was sexually assaulted by her boyfriend, there was no way she could have reported it. Her brain shut down and she was barely functional. It was all she could do to break up with him.
The only stance politically that aligns with church policy where women have the option to abort when they are raped, or when their life is in danger according to their doctor, is to make it legal and let women decide.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ position on abortion makes us an unsteady partner in the eyes of Conservatives in the Pro-Life community specifically because our doctrine and policies are not the same as the Catholic Church and many Evangelicals. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (No. 2271)
Our Church takes a more nuanced stance that is not anti-abortion but instead anti-elective abortion for convenience. The Handbook is quite clear:
“The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.”
In a few words, to align with that belief then policies to support that set of beliefs should work to keep abortion legal, safe, and rare. And yet we have States with large LDS populations and politicians and judges who are members pass laws that directly endanger the lives of would be mothers by refusing them abortion care except to prevent the death of the woman but makes no consideration of her health. Or completely restrict it even in cases of or incest, these efforts undermine the Church’s counsel.
As one who with my wife has had to grapple with the fraught circumstances of a fetus with severe genetic defects that we sought to carry to term but ultimately deteriorated to the point of threatening my wife’s life at 24 weeks, the availability of competent medical care including the timely right to abort by inducing labor was critical. We now have 5 beautiful daughters and my wife has lived a healthy life as a result of that intervention without which could have destroyed her kidneys or even left me a widower. No one wants to be in that circumstance and yet today we have families and mothers who are facing real threats to her life because timely care is not available unless she seeks it outside of her State.
The agency to make those choices matters but only can be available if we recognize what the Church’s full teachings are on abortion and avoid making a hasty leap to the belief that we are 100% Pro-Life in giving the fetus precedence over the mother. Instead we are Pro Life in protecting women first and recognizing the importance of caring for them and helping them make healthy choices that ensure healthy babies.
In fact, Mormon doctrine is that the spirit enters the body at first breath. Still born children are not listed as ever having been born, and there is no doctrine that that child is sealed to the family. This has given women who WANTED that baby great pain. So, you can’t have it both ways. Tell me that I have seven children because the four miscarriages are my children that I eventually get to raise, or go to the actual doctrine and a baby isn’t a baby until it draws breath.
The old folk doctrine was that a baby had life at quickening, the time the mother can feel it move, the then Catholic paranoia took over and changed it to conception. 1/2 to 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, many before the mother misses a period, just weeks after conception.
And what about those pregnancies that result from rape? Who gets to decide it was really rape? 90% of rapes are not even reported. A woman who is raped should not have other people, mostly men telling her it wasn’t rape enough for her to qualify for an abortion. Then there is marital rape. Are you going to count it as rape? Happens a lot more than most men understand.
And then what about when the mother’s life is at risk. Are you really pro life, or just pro fetal life like Idaho has become? What about when her health is at risk? Her ability to have future children. Does she get to decide then? Or do you get to decide for her.
What about when the baby is not going to survive anyway? Does the mother then have to risk giving birth to a dead or dying child?
You seem to think it is as simple as “if the woman decides to have sex, then she has already decided. So, married women should just stop having sex when they don’t want more children? The most common reason women have abortions is not because they are unmarried women being embarrassed, but married women who already have more children than they can afford to raise. So, get you Republican friends together and give more financial and medical support to poor women, or stop forcing them to have more babies than they can afford. But, no, it is “pro life” who gut the financial aid and that makes me think they are not pro life, but only pro poverty.
This whole thing is more complicated than you are giving it credit for. Which is why I believe only the pregnant woman should have the right to decide. Not church leaders, not politicians. Only the woman, and maybe her husband, under the advice of her doctor. Every one else should butt out. Not their decision.
A Pro-Mother’s Life just won this thread. It should ONLY be the woman’s choice.
The fundamental flaw this the author’s argument is it assumes abortion is morally wrong. The vast majority of abortions occur at a time of gestation when the spirit has not entered the body. In such situations, abortion terminates a body, not a baby. It does not cause death, much less a wrongful death. Rather, as with contraception, it delays the entrance of a spirit into mortality to a time and situation better suited for its eternal growth.
Our doctrine holds that the primary purpose of sex is the unity of the couple. Creating bodies is an additional benefit, but further down the list. Our doctrine is that a couple has the right of revelation to decide the timing and number of their children (I would add that in the event of a disagreement, the woman decides). God’s gift of contraception is extremely valuable in fostering a couple’s use of sex for unity alongside their moral obligation to not bring children to birth at a time or number contrary to their revelation. The Church erroneously opposed contraception at times past. Thankfully we’ve repented.
Contraception is not foolproof, however. And conception can occur through rape, incest, and other grievous sins against a woman. Abortion at an early stage before the spirit enters a body may therefore be a very moral choice and should be available to women who have right to revelation for her body and posterity.
Our doctrine does not define the time when a spirit enters a body, or whether that the time is the same for all spirits. As such, the right to revelation on the issue falls to the individual. In making this choice, the individual may consider the Temple Endowment where Adam’s and Eve’s spirits entered fully formed bodies, not at conception. They may consider the frequent support by LDS politicians for stem-cell research and IVF – positions in good favor with the Church and which undermine a view that a spirit enters at conception.
The view I am expressing is not extreme. It has been the prevailing view for most of protestant Christianity until the mid-19th century when the religious right aligned with Catholic views. Brigham Young and other early church leaders taught that the spirit does not enter the body until a “quickening” – a point felt and understood by the pregnant woman.
The view I am expressing does not align with most members’ views or the Church’s current policy. Members are allowed to disagree with the Church on policy in good faith and come to different political views based on their moral inspiration. While I do not think it germane to this argument, I add that I hold these views as an active temple-recommend holding member who (alongside my wife) has chosen to bring 5 children into this world. Our children are active in the church and so far have all chosen to serve missions and marry in the temple. I don’t say that to boast (they make their choices), only to establish that good members can be pro-choice.
Here’s an important article on the subject by Terryl Givens:
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/a-latter-day-saint-defense-of-the-unborn/
“Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion.”
The church’s counsel is for its own members, and rightly so. From what I have read, the church does not have a political position to govern the entire society, and takes no position on abortion legislation.
The church also teaches its members to honor the sabbath day and to pay tithing and so forth, and to avoid adultery, but does not advocate for criminalizing these things. So it is with abortion. It seems disingenuous and unfair (maybe even uncharitable) for zealous church members to attempt to criminally punish fellow citizens for a church rule that applies only to church members.
That said, I like to think of myself as pro-life — but we live in a pluralistic society, and the majority wins. Given a choice, I might vote in favor of what is seen as a pro-choice proposition, because the pro-life faction seems to me sometimes to go too far. I plead for honesty in our public square conversations.
Such a well written article. Thank you for taking the time to research this and what our doctrine says. It’s unfortunate that so many people disagree with this article when every bit of it was backed up by the words of modern prophets and apostles. Unfortunately Satan has managed to really confuse this issue and convince even the Lord’s people to allow these terrible tragedies to occur. Continue doing your great work!
After much study and prayer, I consider myself pro-choice. Reading about the history of abortion clinics in the 19th century really convinced me that we as a society should not be imposing what those women went through by outlawing abortion. I don’t like abortion and am quite happy to comply with the church’s statement: “Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion.” I’ve never done those things and don’t plan to. But I do agree with the statement, “abortion ought to be safe, legal, and rare.” I’m happy to work to help keep abortion rare through other means (like education, contraception, expansion of medical care, support for mothers and children) other than banning abortion.
Thanks for sharing!
I’m surprised to see comments about when the spirit “enters” the body. We don’t know, and it doesn’t even matter. As President (and Dr.) Nelson said in the talk “Reverence for Life”, what matters is that the unborn child has biological life:
“It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. … A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science.”
From what I have seen, a lot of people saw Saturday’s Warrior and took it very literally, and now assume that babies’ spirits enter in a single moment at birth. Whether that is the case or not, abortion does kill an unborn child (unless it has already died). After about six weeks, as President Nelson also said, it literally “sheds innocent blood”. Sometimes killing is justified, as we know, but we should not pretend it isn’t killing.
As others have pointed out, the Church’s policies and practices, especially the exceptions under which it allows an abortion, are not consistent with the proposition that a fetus is a full-blown person with all the rights of a person from the moment of conception. Given the quotes above you might expect President Nelson to change that, and it is telling that he has not. In fact, when Texas passed laws that exposed a bishop to liability if he told a couple to follow the Church’s policy, the Church’s response was not to remove the exceptions, but rather to remove the requirement that the bishop be consulted. This issue calls for epistemological humility on all sides.
I’m against abortion. Two of the most precious moments on my mission were baptismal interviews where the person I was interviewing burst into sobs of guilt the moment I asked about abortion, and I had the privilege (after ensuring the circumstances did not require the mission president’s approval) of informing them that that sin would be washed away when they entered the waters of baptism.
BUT. I have been horrified but the way pro-life ideologues have crafted anti-abortion laws with reckless disregard for the lives of mothers. Where they have included exceptions, they have almost uniformly failed to write them in a way such that doctors can actually rely on them without putting patients’ lives and health in danger. (But really, what rational doctor can ever say “This is so obviously covered by an exception that I’m 100% sure even Ken Paxton will agree with me”?) Faced by the consequences of their lawmaking, their response has generally been to circle the wagons and attack the victims. So I have reluctantly concluded that, unless and until the current era of governance by sound bite and posturing comes to an end, our government is simply not competent to regulate abortion right now.
I agree with Stephen’s statement “Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion.” I’ve never done those things and don’t plan to. But I do agree with the statement, “abortion ought to be safe, legal, and rare.
Keeping in mind that using abortion as “planned contraception” I find irresponsible at best and an utter disregard for life at worst. However, I take issue with the quotes from our LDS leaders and the ease at which they cast moral stones at women on this issue while simultaneously being sealed to multiple women, with the understanding and support of a doctrine that enables men to have sex with multiple women. So, abortion is immoral but multiple sex partners is perfectly moral. Thats pretty convenient moral relativism.
Men telling women that their “choice” to have sex was always connected to the risk of getting pregnant is pretty rich coming from the one who can engage in endless sexual misconduct without the costs associated with pregnancy. Sexuality has always been a more costly issue for women and until the men chirping from the peanut gallery want to pay the cost of, let’s say, their arm being chopped off for impregnating a women, then I’ll leave this decision to the woman.
Given that a D&C performed after a miscarriage is classified as a medical abortion, I and many other church members have technically had abortions. And I’m so grateful my medical providers were capable to perform those lifesaving surgeries for me, and I wasn’t life-flighted to another state to preserve my life and/or fertility. I think the church has a reasonable statement on this topic, but it isn’t the place of government (especially mostly males who have no medical training or personal experience in this field) to make sweeping medical decisions.
“After much study and prayer, I consider myself pro-choice.” Who are you praying to, Moloch?
73 Million babies aborted every year. Snuffed out of existence, with no say in the matter of course. Its hard to comprehend all the pathetic attempts in the comments section to rationalize this with this many dead babies upon us. You take issue with the quotes of our leaders upon it Todd? Well who died and sustained you as prophet? There are other churches you know, not lead by these pesky prophets and apostles, that would happily accept you.
This argument has never been about a women’s right to her body, because it always involves someone elses body, and an act of violence being perpetrated against it. Elective abortion is evil, if you don’t believe that then why would you want to continue to be a member of the church, which puts such a massive emphasis on children, families and a plan of salvation. The author (a women to boot!) recognizes the false sophistry of trying to use our teachings of agency to justify evil.
I’ve never been very interesting in other people policing my prayers. Sorry if my views upset you, Disciple.
Oh, my. A reply and attack like Disciple’s comment makes me wonder whose Disciple he or she is — almost certainly, not Jesus’. BTW, I haven’t ready any comments here of anyone justifying evil.
That said, I support the church’s official statement that church “[m]embers must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion” followed by exceptions and invitation to individual prayer — this is a teaching to church members, and it is a church’s right to proffer such teachings. I also support the church’s pronouncement that it (the church) has no opinion on abortion legislation.
What does your role as president of Latter Day Saints for life entail? I checked the website but it wasn’t clear. Do you provide alternatives to abortion including but not limited to access to medical care, funding for preschool and lobbying for nationwide paid family leave programs for new parents? Did your organization advocate to care for the immune compromised and elderly during the pandemic in line with prophetic counsel? Or is it merely casting shame and guilt on those whose privilege and preferences aren’t the same as yours? Asking for a friend.
Also I find it curious that your essay above didn’t discuss the handbook. How is providing examples of when abortion is allowed by definition not a pro-choice position?
Also saying think celestial or calling people deceived by Satan are thought stopping techniques that allow you to not engage with complexities of people’s lived experience. It’s inappropriate and judgmental and I would ask you to rethink these tactics.
I would have expected this kind of pushback in the comments on other less conservative LDS sites. It makes me happy to see it here as well.
I work with volunteers in various settings, in many cases trying to help individuals and families stay alive. I’ve never heard of assistance coming from Ms. Spackman’s organization. My hunch is that they really don’t protect life actively, they just talk about it. It’s all political. And why would Latter-day Saints allow their name to be used in an overtly political fashion?
The most recent quote in Spackman’s essay is from 2008, 16 years ago. It is worthwhile, then, to look at the General Conference talk “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution” by Dallin H. Oaks, given in 2021. Here are some pertinent excerpts:
“God has given His children moral agency—the power to decide and to act. The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices.”
“…we do not see inspiration in every Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution.”
“There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.
“Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time. We also insist, and we ask our local leaders to insist, that political choices and affiliations not be the subject of teachings or advocacy in any of our Church meetings.”
In addition, if you sincerely want to reduce abortions, the answer is not to make it unavailable but to make it unnecessary. Are you involved in any of the following?
1) comprehensive sexuality education that includes medically accurate information about abstinence and contraception;
2) insurance coverage of and public funding for family planning services;
3) greater access to emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy and does not cause abortion);
4) programs that curb domestic violence and sexual abuse; and
5) ensuring that women have the means to give birth to and raise children in health and safety. This includes (but is not limited to) providing genuine education and career opportunities to all girls and women, plus health care, child care, affordable housing, services for disabled children, and other basic supports.
(adapted from The Right Way to Reduce Abortion – Center for American Progress)
Being PRO-fetus is not enough. Are you PRO-woman?
As much as I acknowledge and respect Ms Spackman’s sincerity and desire to protect ‘life’, I am supremely happy that neither she nor her organization were calling the shots when my wife’s pregnancy went sour, and we had to abort the fetus in order to save her life (this was in Utah, prior to our present unhappy situation). Not only I am happy for our successful outcome, but also my three children who would have been left motherless if the doctor had been legally prevented from performing the necessary Dilation & Curetage procedure.
This is a beautiful article. Thank you Jessica for speaking up for the unborn and sharing the truth of the doctrine of the sanctity of life in such a direct and unapologetic way. As we know, Jesus has told us that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40). Who are the least of these, if not the unborn and the mothers who find themselves in crisis pregnancy situations? As a society I believe we have come to accept and defend abortion because of fear of suffering and worship of convenience (and I don’t exempt myself from that). The unfortunate consequence is that when you devalue and dehumanize one group of human beings, it doesn’t stop there. It eventually extends to the disabled (2/3 of down syndrome children are aborted in the U.S.) and the elderly (Canada has almost no restrictions legal euthanasia and the U.S. is heading that direction too). When people are desensitized to killing in this way, before you know it, you end up in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (pro-eugenics and genocide) wondering how we got here.
Truly, then elective abortion is never the answer (and let me clarify – elective abortion is the intentional killing of a living preborn human implanted in the uterus, not miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy which is recognized by law as something completely different). Women deserve better than abortion. They deserve to be taught the truth – that they are created in the image of God, a divine mother in heaven -they were literally MADE to be mothers. That their preborn child came from heaven and CHOSE this mortal journey, as difficult and full of suffering as it can be. Your child loves and trusts you, and God loves you with an infinite and everlasting love and will provide a way for you to move forward as you turn to him in faith. We need to empower women by reaching out with charity, the pure love of Christ, so faith can overcome fear and they can make the best choice, the correct choice, to choose life. There are over 3,000 nonprofit Christian pregnancy resource centers nationwide that do this, providing spiritual, financial, material, occupational support, not just until birth but years afterwards. THIS is the answer, and this is the way forward and example we need to follow as Latter-day Saints.
Well, this should stir the pot… I agree with the author. She made great points that are spot on. I would have liked her to address the issue presented by some commenters that until birth it’s just a fetus. That is another tactic of the pro-abortionists. Dehumanize it. That way it isn’t morally reprehensible. But, to use common sense: if it isn’t a baby, you aren’t pregnant.
Of course, everyone brings up the life of the mother. I don’t think the author was arguing against taking the life of the mother into account. In fact, she seemed to advocate the Church’s position which does just that. The real fact is that the vast majority of abortions performed are for reasons of convenience. Everyone wants to talk about the exceptions as if they justify the norm.
Now…attack because you will.
Another choice not mentioned is adoption. My child’s birth mother said it was both the hardest and easiest decision she’s ever made. My child is grateful for her choice. Sadly, when people find out she placed her child for adoption they react with disgust saying, “how could you do that?” So much for people being pro-choice.
I’d like to address some of the misconceptions in these comments:
1. It’s true that God has not revealed to us when a spirit enters the body. We do, however, have evidence in the scriptures of a baby in the womb leaping for joy upon recognizing Christ. As God has not specifically told us when a spirit enters the body, we then rely upon what we know from scientific reality, which is that a human being with unique DNA is present from the moment of conception. In addition, this argument that a spirit may or may not have entered a prebirn baby’s body is arbitrary; there are many cases of abortion survivors; babies who survived the attack on their life. Most of these individuals have physical disabilities; to argue that the spirit had not yet entered their body is a silly way of justifying the damage done to their bodies (which we are taught in our doctrine are sacred).
2. Whenever the abortion argument is brought up, people try to sidestep it by speaking about the cases of rape, or in the case of this comments section, the life of the mother. Or they bring up removal of a baby who has died due to miscarriage. 1. Abortion in the case of rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortions; using it as justification for all other elective abortions is wrong. 2. All states, yes, all states (except for Oregon, which has no restrictions on abortion) include exceptions in their laws for when the life of the mother is in danger. We can argue about the wording of those laws, but the implication that all abortions should be legal because of these small percentage of cases is disingenuous. 3. The removal of a baby who has already passed away is not what this article is discussing; and mentioning it here as a justification for the legality of all abortions is also disingenous.
3. There are those attacking Latter Day Saints for Life with the statement that they don’t do anything for women who are pregnant (e.g. contraception, sex education, etc.). This is a classic “distraction argument.” When people speak about how a certain action is immoral, such as rape, or murder, no one goes on and tells them they must be insincere because they aren’t actively at the front lines stopping murders themselves. This is only the case when it comes to abortion; people are avoiding the actual issue of whether abortion is right or wrong when they ask “what do you do for pregnant women.” If something is wrong, then teaching about that wrong is important in itself. If you disagree, you must make a valid argument for abortion, not a distracting argument which classifies all pro-lifers as hypocrites.
Silent,
No one this thread who has offered a perspective differing from the OP’s has attacked anyone — their comments have been entirely civil — your fear in this forum seems entirely unfounded. Indeed, if any attacks occur here, well, we can already see in the thread where they come from.
That said, I like to think of myself as pro-life — but given a choice in a future voting opportunity, I may find myself voting in favor of what some might say is a pro-choice proposition because the pro-life faction seems to me sometimes to go too far. I am afraid of the vitriol and fear-mongering among certain parts of the pro-choice side, and hope for charitable approaches and interactions.
According to the official Church Handbook, abortion is not equivalent to murder. This certainly implies that an unborn fetus differs from a living human. And, Sophia, women cannot become mothers without a man’s intervention. If women are MADE to be mothers, then men are MADE to be fathers. WHERE ARE THE MEN????
I have a friend who, while pregnant, was told her baby had severe defects and was not expected to live much past birth. She and her husband prayerfully chose to keep the pregnancy and a few days after birth their child died.
This friend is pro-choice because, she says [paraphrased only slightly], “choosing to remain pregnant for months while knowing my baby would die soon after birth, and then having death become a reality, was so hard and so painful that I would never have wanted to be forced to go through that. It was manageable because we *chose* to take on that pain.”
I will also agree with ji’s last comment. I hope for charitable approaches and interactions. I want to reiterate what I stated above. The use of abortion as “planned contraception” I find irresponsible and a complete disregard for human life. I also find it quite disingenuous to suppose that those who lean “pro-choice” are somehow in favor of mass genocide of the indefensible life. Perhaps there are some wild extremists who favor abortion as population control, but I don’t believe that is the position of those here.
As far as protecting the indefensible life of the child, I am in favor of lobbying for the child while respecting complex life situations of the woman. I am well aware of the percentage of abortions coded as “elective”. I would love to provide as many opportunities to these women to give the child life without them having to make a decision that would make them a criminal. As a side note, I have sat through dozens of Sunday school classes covering the troubling incident with Nephi killing the “indefensible” Laban, and while I understand this has a lot of complexity, I have literally NEVER heard any member even come to the defense of this indefensible life.
However, I have heard every possible justification for the killing known to man, but not any real concern for the unlawful but morally ambiguous act.
And Nephi’s incident is made more complicated by the fact that God commanded the killing. I’m not attempting to use this as a reason to justify abortion, only that I find it odd that we scoot over the story without blinking an eye.
It’s equally disingenuous to accuse “pro-choice” people of being blanket dehumanizers. For heaven’s sake, we all “other” and dehumanize, much of which is so baked in our subconscious we don’t recognize the severe biases we carry. Our LDS Church creates constant “Us vs Them” dichotomies. At the end of the day, I am 100% for life while supporting women’s choice.
I’ll echo RLD’s comments. I’m pro-life. I find abortion used as post facto birth control seriously problematic. I mostly agree with Dobbs. But I live in Idaho and the implementation of abortion laws by the republican legislature here has been abhorrent. Patients with obviously unviable pregnancies waiting outside the hospital until they start bleeding so severely that a doctor can be absolutely certain that her life is in danger before they’ll agree to treat them, and even then doctors are nervous. The result is precisely what you’d think: OB/GYNs leaving the state in alarming numbers. They closed a delivery wing of a hospital in north Idaho due to all this, so now a woman who wants to give birth from that town has to go more than an hour away to the next location. Meanwhile, in Boise, where I live, everyone who wants an abortion does so by driving 45 minutes to Oregon to get one–and Boise has 40-45% of the state’s population. So who are we saving, exactly?
If this is what it means to be pro-life now, count me out. 8 years ago I never would have said it. But it feels increasingly like the dystopia I told all my friends on the left would never come.
jimbob,
If we look at the problem on a global scale it becomes very sobering. There have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion abortions performed over the last 50 years. And somewhere in all of that there’s what amounts to a holocaust of unimaginable proportions–of death and carnage of the unborn.
I don’t want to trivialize the problems associated pregnancy — and I believe that women should have easy access to emergency care — even so, when I consider that scale of the destruction and horror caused by abortion I must say that I’m in favor of some push back against the status quo vis-a-vis reproductive healthcare.
We’ve become too comfortable with the way our modern conveniences make things disappear.
Thank you, Jessica. I actually lean more Catholic on this issue, but wouldn’t protest in the streets the church’s position in case birth, however important, is an ordinance that needs to be chosen so abortion when rape happens may be justified. That said, having miscarried and seen the fetus, I will never be persuaded that life begins with breath. Life starts at conception and I’m sick of saints arguing “we don’t know when the spirit enters the body” to justify being complacent about widespread taking of life. Also care after a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) is not an elective abortion @acw.
Sophia, unfortunately you are wrong about ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage being “different”. In States like the anti life state of Idaho, it has to be a last minute emergency before doctors even consider risking 5 years in prison for performing an abortion that is not “to save the mother’s life. Doctors just do not dare risk the prison time. Supposedly, to save the mother’s life is a good enough reason, but the doctors are confused by exactly what kinds of emergencies are covered and which are not, so apparently it is illegal in Idaho until the fallopian tube ruptures, because that is when the mother’s life is in danger enough that it is considered a real emergency. By then, it is often too late to safe the mother. Women are life flighted OUT of Idaho to save their lives. And miscarriage, no, even though there is no way the baby can make it, the woman is allowed to hemorrhage until her life is in danger enough that it is an emergency, instead of just a dangerous situation. Women have been driven the several hours to a state where abortion is legal, all the time dangerously bleeding, because the emergency room in Idaho turned them away. So, far, no one has died, but hospitals simply cannot afford to keep life flighting so many women out of state. Read up an educate yourself. Women’s lives are being put at risk because the laws were written by idiot politicians who seem to believe that God magically protects mothers, or something. The laws were not written by doctors who know and can describe the kind of dangerous situations, but by politicians wanting to get reelected. So, now the doctors try to guess what the politicians meant. Meanwhile hospitals are shutting down maternity wards, leaving women to drive 100s of miles for prenatal care and a hospital set up to deliver babies. doctors are leaving the state because they do not want to choose between saving a woman’s life and going to prison or doing nothing and watching her bleed to death. I listen to Idaho’s idiot politicians saying all these cases are covered and the doctors trying to explain the law as written is NOT clear what cases are covered, and the politicians just argue in stupid circles, saying of course they are covered, and then when asked about protections for the doctor trying to save a life, that same politician admits that doctors will be prosecuted. And, no, I did not vote for any of the jackasses with an R in front of their names. This medical chaos is the fault of people like you who just do not believe that near total abortion bans can kill mothers, because somehow you believe that an ectopic pregnancy has to be covered when the law does not state that it is and doctors just don’t want to end up in prison. No, ectopic pregnancy is not covered until the mother is near death, and then it might be too late. Miscarriage is not covered because the D&C that is normal care is considered abortion and is banned unless the mother is near death bleeding out.
Me, I once told a doc who was gently trying to explain that my life was in serious jeopardy, that if he was suggesting an abortion the answer was no. So, unless you have been where I have and actually risked your own life, you don’t understand why only the mother should decide. It is her life. I am fiercely pro choice, even though I am very anti abortion.
And speaking of bad argument, no body is “pro abortion.” Nobody wants more abortions, so just stop with misrepresenting the opposition. Pro choice people want abortion safe, legal and rare. And, abortion is never “for convenience” as it is much much less convenient than not getting pregnant, so nobody chooses to just carelessly get pregnant and then pay several hundred dollars and spend the day “relaxing” in an abortion clinic. The “abortion as convenience” is a totally ridiculous argument. Most women who get abortions are married with children already at home and there was a contraception failure. So, get those married men to get snipped. Have the men take their share of responsibility. Let’s reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies. That actually works.
“And, abortion is never “for convenience” as it is much much less convenient than not getting pregnant…”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying here–but if we measure the level of convenience (of abortion) against actually being pregnant and birthing and nurturing a child then we might get a different picture. I can only imagine that pregnancy can be a horrible inconvenience to a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant.
And so, perhaps, we get a better sense of how abortion might be viewed as a convenience if we place it within the more practicable context of “getting pregnant vs abortion” rather than the more theoretical context of “not getting pregnant vs abortion.” The former makes abortion actionable whereas the latter doesn’t–unless the woman gets pregnant in which case we’re back to the former.
For those of you that live in Idaho, please take a look at your state law – it is unmistakeably clear that treating miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy do not fall under the definition of “abortion”.
Unfortunately I think there are two things happening here – Pro-abortion doctors are protesting the state law by delaying care and putting women’s lives in danger unnecessarily, and then claiming it is the law’s fault (they should lose their medical license for such a crime!!!) and the Pro-abortion mainstream media is amplifying those stories.
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 6
ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES
18-604. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter:
(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean:
(a) The use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulations, fertilization, or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus;
(b) The removal of a dead unborn child;
(c) The removal of an ectopic or molar pregnancy; or
(d) The treatment of a woman who is no longer pregnant.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-604/
@pro mother’s life, it might be good for you to reacquaint yourself with the left’s position. “Safe, legal, and rare” is no longer a phrase used. It is now seen as oppressive by the left to have any limits on why or when a woman gets an abortion. Find me a politician on the left on good standing with his party who has promoted “safe, legal, and rare” since the “shout your abortion” movement. They’re all in hiding, if they exist at all.
These comments all center around medical emergencies or rape which the church gives exceptions to. As the OP is citing the church’s stance, it is ridiculous to see the outrage at her.
There’s obviously a lot to say on this issue, but just a point wrt the “the Republicans are radical on this” line. In the state of New York, California, and virtually every other state where the Democrats have a lock, it’s legal (yes, for the health, including mental health, of the mother, but “health” is defined so broadly so as to be meaningless), to suck the brains out of a screaming, full-term child as it is being born through the birth canal. Which side is being extreme here?
Sophia, you are just plain wrong about what is happening in Idaho. The laws are not clear enough that doctors know what constitutes “a life threatening emergency” and they would rather not risk being prosecuted. Doctors are moving out of state so they can practice medicine without risking people’s lives. It is NOT about doctors purposely delaying and risking lives. The law is what is risking lives. Situations are not as clear as you pretend. Many situations fall in an area where the law is vague about how bad the situation has to be. The doctors are life flighting women out of the state to save lives. But the politicians are pretending the law is clear, but it is NOT clear enough in the emergency room.
“ Which side is being extreme here?”
Both.
Stephen C,
There may be some states that allow for the late-term abortions you describe, but are you sure this includes New York and California? My quick use of the internet tells me that both of these states ban abortions after viability.
I hope for honesty in our conversations here. Indeed, since this is a religiously-themed web site, dishonesty might be said to be un-Christian. Or, is the anti-abortion cause holy enough that it is exempt from mores of honesty, patience, and so forth that otherwise temper Christian dialogue?
Something I noticed when reading the books that didn’t make the cut for the New Testament, was that some of them preached against abortion. Now these books were didn’t make the official cut because – from a certain point of view – they were the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. The Lord has had plenty of opportunity to make a revelation about abortion but has not. Given how actual scriptures don’t mention it, but those have tried to become scripture do, I find that being anti-abortion is not part of God’s gospel.
Bikelanes
“That said, having miscarried and seen the fetus, I will never be persuaded that life begins with breath.”
I respect your experience and understanding. Can you respect mine as well?
I had a truly devastating, horrendous miscarriage at 12 weeks. I also saw the dead fetus. I went thru the only severe depression of my life immediately afterwards (hormones). I stood in the aisle of a store, crying, looking at fabric to make a remembrance quilt for my dead child and suddenly had one of the most clear spiritual experiences of my life. I was told to grieve the experience and the potential but not the child. The was no child. Nothing had been lost but an empty body. The spirits promised to me would come.
This and the fact that my bishop said that the church does not consider the fetus a child nor consider the fetus born into my spouse and my covenant marriage were a game changer for me.
I find abortion horrific. But can you see why I would just never say that it’s the death of a child? I’m not evil. I’m just following the message that God sent to me through his spirit and his servants.
I understand your experience was different, and again I respect that.
At the end of the day I’m pro-choice. If the line between whether a fetus is a child or tissue potential for a child is individual beleif, then individuals should decide what is right to do in their own situations.
@ji: Yes, abortion is legal up to and including birth in those states past viability in cases of the health or life of the mother, with again, health being so vaguely specified so as to be pointless.
@ jader3rd: I always find it weird when members became sola scriptura Protestants in arguments (it is not in the Bible->therefore it is fine). Btw, you can say the same thing about slavery. Literally nowhere in the quad is there an unambiguous condemnation of the practice.
@duchymom No, I can’t accept your experience and you don’t need to accept mine. Truth isn’t dependent on either of our experiences, but I try to use mine and whatever scientific and religious knowledge available to me to find that truth. An unborn child is part of the human species, as long as it is alive it has—-life, its own life, distinct from his or her mother’s. You may think that life isn’t worth human right protections, but I find dehumanization of the unborn one of the saddest on earth, because somehow their own mothers doing it.
p.s. maybe my miscarriages will not be part of my eternal family, I have no idea how to wade through those ambiguous quotes from leaders and don’t need to to know that God is good, but life is life and it’s delusional to pretend otherwise.
“No, I can’t accept your experience and you don’t need to accept mine.”
It makes me sad to hear you say that. I personally *do need* to accept yours because I believe God requires empathy of me. I’m not perfect at it, but He asks that I try. I see God as a parent. Spiritual experiences are individual teaching moments. As a parent I teach, guide, love each of my children very differently. Looking at the sum total of my (or even more God’s) parenting, one sees the greatest love of all.
I admire your dedication to your belief even as mine is different.
@Stephen C, I realize that I am close to arguing sola scriptura, but that’s not what I’m going for (obviously things can be part of the gospel, yet not be in the standard works). What I am arguing is how I find it interesting how being anti-abortion was stance that existed simultaneously with the authors of the scriptures (so they knew the concept existed), but isn’t found amongst their writings. And it’s not just that other writings from back then don’t exist, because other writings do exist, and at some point some people wanted them to become scripture, but those writings didn’t pass the requirements for being considered the Word of God. So it’s not like it was a concept that just never made it to the written record.
I am so grateful who are speaking with knowledge kindness about a life experience that touched the lives many in s many different ways. Because of holy envy years ago I swam the Tiber and dwelt within the gates of Rome then God in his mercy caked from there and back to trek my way to Zion. While over there many things were indelibly marked on my soul. One of those was that human life is sacred from conception to natural death and that we should live in a way that shows we truly believe that.
I apologize for unintended grammatical errors in my previous post.
“… it’s legal to suck the brains out of a screaming, full-term child as it is being born through the birth canal. Which side is being extreme here?”
Some things can be true, and still be misleading. Some things are not true, and can still be very misleading. I have decided for and against commenting on the above inflammatory comment. I do not relish confrontations. But this statement went too far, especially when it was made by someone whose frequent comments and postings here provides significant authority.
I am sure that the commenter knows that fewer than 1% of abortions are done in the third trimester. The vast majority of those rare abortions are done when devastating and heartbreaking news is understood about the fetus or the mother that changes the understanding of the pregnancy.
A baby in the “birth canal” cannot scream until after delivery. The poster of such an outrageous statement appears to make statements that demonize people: the mother of such a child, the physician, the anesthesiologist, the nurses, everyone involved in the killing of a late term healthy fetus are all implicated in such a scenario. As a pediatrician in a state with lots of tolerance towards abortions I know of NO such abortions over my nearly 40-year career. Still, I have to admit it is possibly true that a healthy nearly full term fetus has been aborted at some time in my state. I doubt it, but I don’t know.
I agree that it is impossible for me to justify a late term abortion for mere “convenience,” but it appears that those in favor of choice feel that they must continue to honor a mother’s choice, even to the end of pregnancy. These descriptions of scenarios that virtually never happen succeed at making the “pro-choice” group look unhinged, disregarding of life, and without feeling or a sense of humanity. My belief is that most people are good and moral people who make difficult decisions that I am not party to. If a fetus is terminated in the late term, in those very rare scenarios, there is usually good reason to do so. I don’t believe that such abortions are a matter of maternal convenience or a sudden whim.
The above statement was meant to inflame. Not to inform.
“The above statement was meant to inflame. Not to inform.”
Nor to persuade, since its inflammatory language alienates anyone who does not already agree with its author.
Yes, the literal coming-out-of-the-birth canal infanticides are extremely rare–but they’re still legal, despite the common refrain that it’s a myth that blue states don’t allow them. They do. That’s the point in regards to which side is being extreme. Even if there were none, the fact is that in blue states virtual infanticide is legal as long as they can find a doctor willing to affirm that having birth or a c-section will cause mental distress.
And yes, the vocal cords can’t produce noise while it’s lodged in the birth canal, but presumably bodily reaction is still the same when a tube is being jammed through the skull, whether or not waves travel through the air or not.
Finally, contrary to widespread perception, “data suggest that for most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1363/4521013 True the sample size cutoff includes some late 2nd trimester cases for this particular study, but the idea that late-term abortions for convenience are mythological, and that virtually all late-term abortions are due to fetal or maternal health issues is, well, as myth. Even small-sample qualitative studies that clearly have an agenda show this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190.
There’s probably a compromise on 3rd trimester or post-viability abortions that could get majority support in even in blue states if you could somehow divorce it from the current political environment. But our current political environment does not foster compromise, to say the least. It’s not clear to me that a Democratic politician who wanted to enact such a compromise would have many, if any, partners in the GOP.
One would use one kind of language to try to convince Democrats to support such a compromise, and another to portray them as evil for not having already passed such a compromise. Which is which is left as an exercise to the reader.
Speaking of extremes.
First, the letter of the law. The outer limit of what abortion bans proscribe right now appears to be an Arizona law passed in 1864. This law criminalizes performing any abortion after the moment of conception, with the sole exception of cases where abortion is necessary to prevent a woman’s death. Republican lawmakers in Arizona are currently trying to make sure that this law stays on the books and gets enforced.
Anti-abortion politics even reaches beyond abortion. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Thomas wrote that he would reconsider the Supreme Court’s decision protecting the right to use contraceptives. With this comment, Thomas is inviting states to pass and enforce statutes that would outlaw contraceptives.
As we look at the extremes, there is a second consideration: the actual effect of anti-abortion laws. Even where an abortion ban nominally makes exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health, those exceptions often are not available. That’s because the legal system in many states is robust only in enforcing the prohibition, not the exceptions. Many doctors and hospitals simply stop performing abortions, even abortions that are medically essential. And then OB/GYN physicians start leaving the state because they are prevented from meeting the standard of care. Some hospitals shut down their obstetric units. Resources for women’s health care get hollowed out. The discussion in this thread about the growing catastrophe for women’s health care in Idaho illustrates the point.
Now we arrive at the same point that Stephen C. makes about third-trimester abortion bans in some states. Stephen C. is concerned that restrictions on the books in some states don’t get enforced. I’m pointing out that exceptions on the books in other states are effectively null. If these observations are correct, the laws are not working as they are supposedly intended.
We must eventually arrive at a place where people follow the laws about abortion. We will only get there by talking about policy in a serious way. The moral questions around abortion are, in fact, complicated. We need level heads for that discussion. But we are still stuck in the place where someone can write a ranting piece like the OP and think they have said something useful. The OP is a rant because it makes no effort to see where we should go from here. It comes from inside the writer’s bubble, as if that’s the only thing that matters. It will be much more impressive and much more valuable when Jessica Spackman starts grappling with the actual hard questions about abortion.
When there is such a high number of abortions overall–especially on a global level–a small percentage of late term abortions still amounts to a holocaust.
The author suggests that you should vote republican because of abortion.
It is uncontested that the number of abortions reduces when there is a democrat in the whitehouse.
During Osama’s years I n the whitehouse the rate of abortion fell from 15 per 100 women of childbearing age to 11 which is a 26% reduction in abortions. This happens because democrats teach people how not to get pregnant, and make sure affordable birth control is affordable.During trumps 4 years in the whitehouse the rate rose by 8%.
So if you are voting because of abortion, you should vote democrat!!!