Susan Roylance: European court recognizes human life from the moment of conception

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 29, 2011 6:18 p.m.

    The baby is alive before it is taken out to be operated on.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    K, and Furry...

    Here's a thought to consider. I'm not saying this is how it is or anything, but a possibility.

    K said, "Some babies are operated on in the womb and left to continue development. They don't take a breath either. They are able to move on their own."

    If a baby is taken out of the womb prematurely, this baby is alive. Somehow I can't wrap my head around "The spirit entering the body at birth only" when many children aren't "born" essentially. If we open up the womb, operate on baby (taking baby out or not) the baby physically didn't change... so one can't justify saying that baby isn't alive.

    Furry, I just argued that the baby is alive in the womb. That would stand to say that you should be able to do work for them. But if the Church isn't doing it I thought of a possible explanation. Again, I'm not saying this is the truth, just an idea. Maybe your baby isn't just a body, but has a spirit... BUT if does not live through birthing that spirit may still enter another body, so no work is needed. Just an interesting possibility anyway.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Oct. 29, 2011 8:49 a.m.

    RE: Lane Myer
    RE: Furry1993

    3Ne 1:12-15 is explained easily.

    Perhaps it was an out-of-body experience for a minute.

    However, verse 12 indicates it was only a "voice" that was heard, so not even an out-body experience was even needed, the "voice" may only have been spoken to his mind, and not physically to his ears.

    We know certain ordinances are needed for the living or for those who have lived,

    we also know certain ordinances are not even necessary, like baptism for little children,

    we do not know about those who may have died before a living birth,

    But we are to be of good cheer, God will make all things right.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 29, 2011 6:11 a.m.

    Most of Europe isn't LDS.

    Some babies are operated on in the womb and left to continue development. They don't take a breath either. They are able to move on their own.

    Other faiths do recognize miscarriages and still births as family.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 4:14 p.m.

    Well it sounds like you've made it through quite a bit and with a pretty good outlook on all of it. That's certainly worth commending.

    I completely understand why you'd have the stance, understanding, etc. that you do. That makes sense to me. The only point I care about is clarifying that the Church has no official doctrinal resource or declaration or revelation, etc, etc, etc... on this topic. So in relationship to abortion, I don't think it could strong enough to be used to formulate an objective argument.

    Lane: I'm not sure that Jesus appearing to Nephi would have the same metaphysical principles for an abortion/birth discussion. All spirit is matter. And time is now as we perceive it. So while I appreciate the scriptural quote as I think it was very appropriate and very welcome. On that last thing, I have no clue what to think. That's an interesting aspect to mention, but again... I don't know that we have any idea of how that would or wouldn't relate to this.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    I'm with Furry.

    "Lift up your head and be of good cheer, for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to shew unto the world that I will fulfill all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets..." (3Ne 1:12-15).

    How else could Jesus appear to Nephi? His spirit was NOT in his body until his birth, right?

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    To Freedom-In-Danger | 12:55 p.m.

    For what it's worth, the fact that we learned -- that it wasn't possible to seal because the fetuses/stillborns "hadn't lived" -- was a comfort to us. The only thing we had lost was hoped-for potential children, and not real, living children. While going through six difficult pregnancies and four second-trimester miscarriages was very, very difficult and heartbreaking, it would have been far worse if we had lost actual, living children. 40-odd years later, we are content with our sons (and being grandparents) and have reconciled the disappointment and heartbreak we went through. We recognize that there is a reason for what we were dealt, and feel very blessed with what we have been given.

    All I was doing is giving an accurate and fact-based recounting of what we were told (including, on several occasions and at several priesthood levels, that the reason for no ordinances was "that they hadn't lived" and that, if they had been born and taken even one breath, they would have lived and been eliglble for the ordinances). We rely on the Church authorities and what they said for our positions and beliefs.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 12:55 p.m.

    Furry1993, I completely understand that this is a sensitive issue in general, and especially for you. Please understand that I am not refuting your experiences as invalid, untrue, or so on. I am only saying that what God tells you and another may be different.

    God has a reason for not doing such ordinances (for everything really). However, that reason could be a number of things. Unless God declared or reveals why, no man can claim to know as much. We know our gospel, but none of us know all of God's work. God may not wish for such ordinances to take place. But that does not automatically equate to "They aren't alive" being the reason why. And the Church's position on abortion certainly does not conflict in any way.

    For now, it is unrevealed. The prophet could tell you 'why' and you know. That doesn't mean that it will or should be revealed to others. No priesthood authority has revealed this to the church.

    What I do know is that ALL God's decisions are loving and for our benefit. This is a wonderful comfort. Such a blessing truly takes patience and faith to remember and be true to.

  • ciaobello Concord, CA
    Oct. 28, 2011 11:16 a.m.

    It makes perfect sense.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 28, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    I'm sure I'll get a lot of recommends for this..not, but K, what force is moving the child in the womb if not the spirit..the same force that moves you and me if we don't have a spirit. It's the force of synergies created when chemical and other physical actors come together. It's the reason the baby doesn't move until those synergies are created. As FDR fan said we don't know yet how this all works. We can re-create some of the beginning but certainly don't all the mysteries. The fact that we don't know is why most people continue to hang on to centuries old myths of spirits and souls..entities seperate from the physical body.

    What I can't wait for is the realization that such a ruling bans all forms of birth control. Even hormonal based birth control has a fall back purpose of not allowing the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall. Good luck selling that to the next generation of young adults.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 7:34 a.m.

    To Freedom-In-Danger | 7:28 a.m. Oct. 28, 2011

    Then please tell me why that explanation and criterion was used when my husband and I wanted to have our (second trimester) miscarried fetuses sealed to us when we had our temple sealing and had our (living) sons sealed to us. Please tell me why, when I was doing my family geneology, that explanation and criterion was used when I was denied the right to have stillborns in my ancestral line sealed to their families, and I was told that stillborns could NEVER be sealed into families. Please tell me why, when I contacted the Family History office to revisit the issue, the same explanation and criterion was used then (and that was within this year).

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 7:28 a.m.

    Furry1993,

    1- There is NO doctrine or revelation made clear to the entire membership of the church on this matter. While you may use reasoning to justify your stance, views, or reaction to personal experiences- there still remains no revealed answer regarding this sensitive topic.

    2- If you are not permitted to do ordinances, there could be several reason why that do not include your interpretation of when life 'occurs' regarding birth and the development of the baby. You can not simply give a definitive answer that all members be subject to based on your personal experiences and personal interactions with the church. It is very clear, how the organized structure and authority works within this religion. I am not saying this to offend you or counter your experiences whatsoever. I'm sure others aren't. I am only saying that while you may stand by your statements- you have absolutely no place saying that those statements are official doctrines within the church.

    3- A bishop may ask someone not to partake of the sacrament. This does not negate anything. There are many things yet to be revealed. A fetus may live, yet not need ordinances. We simply don't know.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Oct. 28, 2011 7:20 a.m.

    Despite all the lofty pretensions of wisdom, it is another case of the blind leading the blind. We mortals simply do not know.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 28, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    To the truth | 6:38 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

    Then please tell me why that explanation and criterion was used when my husband and I wanted to have our miscarried fetuses sealed to us when we had our temple sealing and had our (living) sons sealed to us. Please tell me why, when I was doing my family geneology, that explanation and criterion was used when I was denied the right to have stillborns in my ancestral line sealed to their families. Please tell me why, when I contacted the Family History office to revisit the issue, the same explanation and criterion was used then (and that was within this year).

    I stand by my statements.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 28, 2011 6:06 a.m.

    Amazing. All these years the argument has been the child and mother are separate and that is why its okay to abort. Now the mothers nurturing allows independent kicking in response to environment.

    Animals have a spirit. They just don't have the ability to reason good and evil.

  • Swedish reader Stockholm, Sweden
    Oct. 28, 2011 5:32 a.m.

    As I understand LDS theology, EVERY LIVING THING has a spirit - fish and larvae, too. Even the earth itself has a spirit. As to whether unborn children have a spirit, I certainly felt my children's spirits when I was pregnant with them. The spirit may not be entirely fused with the body until birth, but it's certainly not absent.

    And this ruling is welcome not only because it recognizes the zygote, embryo and fetus as an individual, but also because it prevents the making of money off patents on human life. We can't legally sell other human beings after they are born - that's slavery. We shouldn't be able to sell other human beings before they are born, either.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    Oct. 28, 2011 1:55 a.m.

    A doctor who does stem cell research actually said that using your own cells (from your back or skin) is far more efficient and effective than embryonic stem cell research. Plus there is no question of ethics. Why not do that?

    And to answer the question about Republicans "flip-flopping", they will probably emphasize the fact that a highly liberal place such as Europe is even able to recognize the sanctity of life, from conception, then that's huge.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 27, 2011 10:15 p.m.

    Well, this creates an interesting dilemma for Conservatives.

    For years now they have been claiming that European law has no place in American Courts.

    Now that there is a ruling they like, will they stick with their original position, or will they flip?

    My guess is they will flip for this issue but flop back again when it is something they don't like....

  • Rob Logan, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 10:07 p.m.

    That is a fantastic ruling. That is something most of us know anyway. Stem cell research has been going great with adult stem cells. So many new things are coming up and none of them have to do with harming unborn babies.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Oct. 27, 2011 8:53 p.m.

    Freedom-In-Danger | 8:16 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

    Christy: Does nurturing a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would be a direct correlation between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't.

    ===========

    What?

    Which part of a pregnancy is nurturing time, and which isn't?

    Do animals not move in utero? Do fish larvae not move? I'd like to think I'll see my precious dog in Heaven, but does every fish have a spirit?

    I am refuting the idea that a fetus moves because it has a spirit.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 8:16 p.m.

    Christy: Does nurturing a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would be a direct correlation between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't. What pregnant women would say that their baby has no personality in the womb? In fact, MANY studies have been done on the relationship to behavior in the womb to later behaviors after birth. But I guess those are all wrong because you say otherwise?

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:56 p.m.

    "What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?"

    The mother's body nurturing the growing fetus is the 'force'.

    Animals move in utero as well. Do animals have spirits? According to the Bible, thou shalt not kill. This refers to humans, not animals.

    Fish larvae move.

  • cachemagic Draper, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:49 p.m.

    The Supreme Court indicated that they are waiting for someone to define life at conception so they could review Row vs. Wade. Some states have started the process and maybe this action in Europe will accelerate the pace.

    I don't think that Stem Cell research will actually be seriously affected. They will just redouble their efforts to create stem cells from adult cells instead of taking the simpler path of using embryos.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:46 p.m.

    K, "What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?" is a fascinating point to make. But your point regarding LDS Church doctrine is without substance. 1- The LDS Church doesn't 'choose' doctrine 'based on popularity' but teaches revelation. With that understanding, your phrasing could have been different to adequately represent the Church's actual stances. 2- LDS doctrine regards infants as perfect, without sin, etc. God would not condemn them if they are indeed alive and if not, then it would be irrelevant. I'm just missing your point regarding this...?

    Personally, IF an abortion is underway and the unborn baby will not suffer any differently through the procedure- then I accept stem cell research as morally acceptable.

    However, I do remember reading an article mentioning a Harvard finding regarding adult stem cells and skin cells being proven to be able to be used for the very same research as what stem cell research is currently doing. The only difference was that it was at a much slower rate. However, if all moral issues can be put aside by a skin test, I would ask "Why on Earth are we even debating this anymore?" Just a thought...

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:34 p.m.

    No, life begins at conception. What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?

    This effects embryonic stem stell research. Can do what you like with adult stem cells and cord blood. Every child born has cord blood. Plenty of stem cells in there without needing to terminate pregnancy to get them. And stem cells from those sources actually led to treatments. Leukemia for instance is treated with cord blood or through living donor. There is cure or remission. People should donate blood and blood products regularly if they are medical able to donate.

    I was under the impression if a child died before the age of baptism they would go directly to heaven and attain the celestial kingdom. I thought that was what made the LDS church so attractive compared to other faiths. No limbo for unbaptised babies?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:16 p.m.

    From the article:

    "It is very much to be regretted that the court has taken this view," said Sir Ian Wilmut from the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh. "It will unfortunately make it less likely that companies in Europe will invest in the research to develop treatments to use embryonic stem cells for treatment of human diseases."

    -------

    Utilitarianism and Consequentialism can not be applied to the question of whether something constitutes murder or not, which potentially grants or denies life- as this is the ultimate factor in such a question. 'Does an unborn fetus or child have an inherent right to life, as we claim for ourselves?'

    If such an ethical paradigm was used to pass such a judgement, then we must discard all inherent rights, such as freedom, religion, speech, life, and so on for everyone else. (Thereby destroying any such morality that could have existed). One cannot justify removing 'rights' from a this moral issue as that is indeed the point in question. "IS there a right?" Otherwise, human rights cease when others can demand based on what they claim they need.

    My rights don't depend on others, they are inherent to my existence.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Oct. 27, 2011 7:02 p.m.

    What a shame that this ruling will affect stem cell research in Europe.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 6:38 p.m.

    RE: Furry1993

    There is no church doctrine about the spirit joining the body at birth,
    there is no church doctrine about drawing a a breath,

    Proxy ordinanaces are done for who have lived and died, and has noting to do about breathing, the are simply performed for those have lived here.

    there is no official doctrine about babies lost before coming to term,

    Please stop making stuff up to justify adhereing to a particular view.

    Since this came from a socialist liberal court, according to the left the decision must be correct.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 27, 2011 6:21 p.m.

    Is this the end of in vitro-fertilization too?

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    To Portland Trail Blazers | 6:01 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

    You're right -- we always existed as spirits. We became mortal/human life when we were born and our spirits joined the bodies creeted for us through pregnancy, which happened at birth. That's why the vicarious ordinances of the LDS Church, available only to those who have lived, can be performed only for people who have been born and who have drawn at least one breath.

    The decision by the European court is not well based.

  • Portland Trail Blazers Sandy, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 6:02 p.m.

    God* instead of got

  • Portland Trail Blazers Sandy, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 6:01 p.m.

    As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.

    God created every single human being on THIS Earth. We have always existed as spirits, but got created our physical body.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Oct. 27, 2011 5:18 p.m.

    Since "embryonic stem cell research is out of business", bring all that "cutting-edge biotechnical research" to America!