Quantcast

Comments about ‘The Mormon Church's official statement on abortion’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 30 2011 11:03 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
NewInUtah
Layton, UT

Abortion is a personal matter. A person or couple should not have to get anyones permission before coming to a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Sure they can seek advise and council, but saying you have to talk to someone first is wrong.

CJ
Murray, UT

Does this mean that we shouldn't vote for politicians who support abortion on demand? How about a state senator who voted three times to allow a doctor in a hospital to go find a baby who accidentally survived an abortion and kill it? Should we vote for such politician? If not then none of us should have voted for Barack Hussein Obama because he is that senator.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Yes, abortion is a personal matter. It is also a moral matter. At its basis is the family. When a man and a woman act together to create a child, that action transcends the two of them. It involves a third person.

Is it immoral for a Church to speak for that third person?

Is is immoral for a Church to remind us that life is sacred?

Is is immoral for a Church to place sanctions on people within its membership who wantonly destroy that innocent third person?

Actually, there is very little that is personal in abortion. A personal matter can be resolved by a person or persons when they are the only people involved. That is not the case in abortion. Two people have no right to speak for the third person that they have created. Two people cannot vote to destroy the life of the third person. Two people cannot pretend that the third person would not become just as much of a human being as they are.

A Church has a moral obligation to represent the will of its leader. Christ is that leader. What would he do?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: NewInUtah | 3:12 p.m. May 1, 2011

Churches have not only the right but also the responsibility to give advise and council on all issues that involve morality. Every organization, religious or otherwise, have guidelines that their members are expected to adhere to.

How could it be otherwise?

WHAT NOW?
Saint George, UT

@3:55

With all due respect, using the same kind of reasoning, your example could easily be made on the other side of the aisle.

For example:

"Does this mean we shouldn't vote for politicians who support abortion on demand"?

How about a California Governor who signed an abortion law which led to the abortion of 2,000,000.

Should we have voted for such an individual?

If not, then none of us should have voted for Ronald Wilson Reagan because he was that Governor.

Without an "explanation" of the context of either "vote", either of the two politicians could be made out to be uncaring monsters.

CJ
Murray, UT

@what now
Murdering a live baby is ok in the "right context"? ThIs one is about as black and white as it gets. Give me a break! No moral relativism about this one, he voted for it three times! And no we should never vote for anyone including Reagan who thinks murder is a "choice".

WHAT NOW?
Saint George, UT

@6:33

You are obsessed with demonizing President Obama.

The fact that you left President Reagan out of your original comment @3:55, proves that point.

Just wanted to make sure both sides of the aisle received equal demonizing.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

None of the comments about who we should or should not vote for has any relevance to an article entitled "The Mormon Church's official statement on abortion."

The Church doesn't tell us which candidate to vote for, or against.

nick humphrey
kent, WA

"The Church allows for possible exceptions"

can someone please tell in which revelation did elohim give this information and to which prophet and when. thanks.

WWJD? == who would jesus destroy?

terminating a week old egg is not murder. the issue is not black and white. if you argue from the perspective of "it could have grown up to be someone great", then you would be against contraceptives as well. you would also be against the death penalty--"he could have repented and come unto christ had he had enough time". if your doctor could prove the fetus had anencephaly and that it wouldnt survive birth, but at the same time your wife could die in birth, but her chances would dramatically increase with an abortion, would you still risk letting your wife die even though the baby would certainly die right after birth?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments