Photo supplied, Intellectual Reserve

Every week since the last general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April, I have written a column about one of the talks from the most recent conference. This week, I felt prompted to do something different but still tied to conference addresses. I’ve had this topic on my mind a lot lately, and especially this week.

In April 1985, Russell M. Nelson, now president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, delivered a talk titled “Reverence for Life.”

As then-Elder Nelson introduced his topic, you knew immediately his message was going to be of the utmost seriousness.

“I pray for the spirit of the Lord to help me communicate his mind and will on a very vital and sensitive subject,” he said. “I apologize for the use of words repugnant to me and ill-suited to this hallowed pulpit. I do so only for clarity of communication regarding reverence for human life.”

What I hope isn’t lost as I continue to present Elder Nelson’s words is that he prayed for the spirit of the Lord to help him communicate the Lord’s mind and will on the topic he was about to address. I don’t need a prophet or apostle to say those words for me to realize they are sharing counsel I need to heed, but when he does, as Elder Nelson did, I have perfect confidence that what he is about to share is, in fact, the mind and will of the Lord. I sustain prophets and apostles as being called by Jesus Christ himself to lead his church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so when Elder Nelson, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, prays for the spirit of the Lord to help him communicate the Lord’s mind and will, I believe the Lord will do that and we all better pay strict attention to what is said next.

Ryan Comer, Standard-Examiner

Elder Nelson continued:

“As sons and daughters of God, we cherish life as a gift from him.

“A heavy toll on life is included among the evils of war. Data from all nations are appalling. For the United States of America, 100,000 were killed in World War I; over 400,000 died in World War II. In the first 200 years as a nation, the lives of over 1 million Americans were lost due to war.

“Regrettable as is the loss of loved ones from war, these figures are dwarfed by the toll of a new war that annually claims more casualties than the total number of fatalities from all the wars of this nation.

“It is a war on the defenseless — and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn.”

Ryan Comer, Standard-Examiner

Of course, he was talking about abortion. After sharing some statistics, Elder Nelson lamented the practice and inconsistencies of logic used by those who support and defend it.

“Yet society professes reverence for human life,” he said. “We weep for those who die, pray and work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it were a thing of naught?

“What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill 12-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life 12 weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth.

“The Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Matthew 5:21; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; James 2:11; Mosiah 13:21; 3 Nephi 12:21; Doctrine and Covenants 42:18-19; Doctrine and Covenants 132:36) Recently he added, ‘Nor do anything like unto it.’ (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6) Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, the enlightened understood the sanctity of life. John Calvin, the 16th-century reformer, wrote: ‘If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.’

“But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong?”

I think of all that bothers me about the practice of abortion, the most distressing aspect is the apparent callousness of those who support it. I don’t even hear lip service from them on how tragic it is. “Safe, legal and rare,” as coined by a former United States president, has turned into, as one current governor recently said he wanted abortion to be: “safe, legal and accessible.” To many, just the mere thought of any limits on abortion is simply unacceptable. Do the lives of those not yet born have such little significance? They’re voiceless, they’re defenseless and, apparently, they’re completely meaningless. I wish these supporters could feel what I feel when they think of the destruction of a developing and helpless life and, specifically, the methods used to perform so many of these abortions. When I think of it all, I’m gutted.

I recently posed a hypothetical to my 9-year-old. I told him to imagine a high school girl who messes up and gets pregnant. I feel terrible that I live in a world where I even feel the need to bring such issues up with such a young child, but I know the words he has heard and the behaviors he has seen at school already, so I don’t feel like I can afford to procrastinate difficult discussions. Gratefully, he is mature beyond where I was at his age. Continuing this hypothetical, I said to him that this girl knows that she’s ill-equipped to take care of the baby but doesn’t know what to do. I presented three options. Option 1: Just have the baby and manage the situation the best she can. Option 2: Put the kid up for adoption and have it raised by a family that she knows will want it, love it and support it. Option 3: Have an abortion. My son asked, “What’s an abortion?” I said it’s where the baby is killed. Its life is ended. He said that the second option was the best option because that way she knows it’s taken care of. I asked him what he thought of the third option. “That’s a horrible option!” he exclaimed. “Why would she do that?” His immediate and declarative response prompted a question in my mind. If one was to conduct a poll of a million 9-year-olds, who previously didn’t know what abortion was, asking them what they thought of the practice after explaining it to them (exactly how it is done and exactly what it does to the fetus), how many would say it was right? I think we all inherently know very few, if any, would. I imagine an overwhelming majority would be absolutely mortified, and if they learned their parents supported it, their immediate reaction would be disgust. Why do so many convince themselves something is OK that the 9-year-old versions of themselves would almost certainly consider evil?

Elder Nelson addressed some of the most common justifications for abortion and argued against each one of them.

Reason No. 1: Rare circumstances

“These slogans begin with proper concern for the health of the mother,” he said. “Infrequently, instances may occur in which the continuation of pregnancy could be life-threatening to the mother. When deemed by competent medical authorities that the life of one must be terminated in order to save the life of the other, many agree that it is better to spare the mother. But these circumstances are rare, particularly where modern medical care is available.

“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% of all abortions are performed for these two reasons. The other 97% are performed for what may be termed ‘reasons of convenience.'”

Why can we not all agree that “reasons of convenience” should never be justification for the termination of a developing and innocent life? How can one terminate a life and feel OK with it simply for “reasons of convenience?” Again, is the developing life of that little consequence?

Reason No. 2: Health of the child

Elder Nelson continued:

“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.

“The experience of a couple whom I shall identify as Brother and Sister Brown (fictitious names) is instructive. Sister Brown was only 21 years old at the time, a beautiful woman and a devoted wife. In her first trimester, she contracted the dreaded German measles.

“Abortion was advised because the developing baby would almost surely be damaged. Some members of her family, out of loving concern, applied additional pressure for an abortion. ‘Don’t burden yourself financially with a handicapped child,’ they argued. ‘You are too young and too poor.’

“Devotedly, Brother and Sister Brown consulted their bishop. He referred them to their stake president, who listened to their serious concern and counseled them not to terminate the life of this baby, even though the child might have a problem. He quoted this scripture:

“‘Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.’ (Proverbs 3:5-6)

“They chose to follow that counsel and permit their child to be born — a beautiful little girl, normal in every respect, except for a hearing loss that became evident later. After an evaluation at a school for the deaf, Brother and Sister Brown were advised that this child had the intellect of a genius. Now, some 20 years later, she attends a major university on a scholarship.

“When recently asked how they felt about their once-weighty decision, the mother quickly responded, ‘She is one of the great joys of my life! She is such a choice spirit! Though she lost the sense of hearing, she has compensated with augmented ability otherwise. Her eyes are alive with constant attention. She excels in dancing, even though she perceives the sounds of music from vibrations. She has served as an officer in school. But most significant is her guileless spirit, her unconditional love. She has taught us to serve and to share. Her spiritual insights have helped us to know God and his purposes. My husband and I are so grateful that she is one of our children.’

“Consider another individual weighing the consequences of her pregnancy. She was beyond the normal age for bearing children. She announced to her doctor that her husband was an alcoholic with a syphilitic infection. One of her children had been born dead. Another child was blind. Another had tuberculosis. Her family had a history of deafness. Finally, she confessed that she was living in abject poverty. If this true historical situation were posed today, many would recommend abortion. The child born from that pregnancy became the renowned composer Ludwig van Beethoven.”

When my wife was about 15 weeks pregnant with our first child, her doctor told her about a type of test that would let us know if our developing son had a certain abnormality. Initially, we were intrigued, but then we decided against it. We concluded that there was no point in knowing. What would be the difference if we knew? Would we abort the child if we found out it had an abnormality? Of course not. So then what would be the point? We were going to love our child no matter what. That child had worth no matter what. That child was a son of God no matter what. We all want healthy, happy children, free of disease and abnormalities. But even if that is not the case, that child is still a spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Father and does not deserve to have a life filled with choices and happiness ripped away simply because life may be more challenging for the parents.

Finishing his point, Elder Nelson said:

“But the principle involved extends beyond those who may become great. 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!”

Some may scoff at the slippery slope Elder Nelson described, saying such a notion is not realistic, but having seen where society has gone on the matter of abortion in seemingly just a few short years, I don’t know that I’m quite so confident.

No. 3: Bodily autonomy

Elder Nelson continued:

“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.

“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 23 chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science.

“Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days, the circulation of blood begins.

“Scripture declares that the ‘life of the flesh is in the blood.’ (Leviticus 17:11) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.”

Over the years, I’ve heard many arguments about how abortion can be justified up until a certain point of development, but people disagree when that point of development is. Is it when the heart starts beating? Is it when the fetus starts to look like a human being? Is it when the fetus can feel pain? The problem with all these arguments is that they are all subjective. What makes a fetus a life when it feels pain but not when it starts to look like a human being? What makes a fetus a life when it starts to look like a human being but not when its heart starts beating? What makes a fetus a life when its heart starts beating when other processes take place prior to that show development? The only reasonable, nonsubjective argument from my viewpoint is what Elder Nelson said, which is “when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from both the father and from the mother.” That is when, as he said, biological sciences have determined that life begins.

No. 4: Population control

Continuing his list of justifications for abortion, Elder Nelson said:

“Another excuse some use to justify abortion relates to population control. Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments, they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion. They live in squalor, oblivious to the divine teaching — stated in the scriptures not once, but 34 times — that people will prosper in the land only if they obey the commandments of God. (Leviticus 26:3-15; Joshua 1:7-8; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 18:7; 2 Chronicles 24:20; 2 Chronicles 26:5; 2 Chronicles 31:21; Ezra 6:14; Job 36:11; 1 Nephi 2:20; 1 Nephi 4:14; 2 Nephi 1:9, 20, 31; 2 Nephi 4:4; 2 Nephi 5:10-11; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7; Mosiah 2:22, 31; Alma 9:13; Alma 36:1, 30; Alma 37:13; Alma 38:1; Alma 45:6-8; Alma 48:15, 25; Alma 50:20; Helaman 3:20; 3 Nephi 5:22; Doctrine and Covenants 9:13)

“How can God fulfill his promise to prosper his children in obedience if they worship idols or destroy life created by him — destined to be in his very image?

“They will prosper only when their education includes faith in and obedience to the God of this world, who said,

“‘I, the Lord, … built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide. … But it must needs be done in mine own way. … For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.'” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:14-17; italics added.)

Elder Nelson concluded his remarks by issuing a warning, as well as some hope for those who have participated in abortions. He said:

“Now, as a servant of the Lord, I dutifully warn those who advocate and practice abortion that they incur the wrath of Almighty God, who declared, ‘If men … hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, … he shall be surely punished.’ (Exodus 21:22)

“Of those who shed innocent blood, a prophet declared: ‘The judgments which (God) shall exercise … in his wrath (shall) be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.’ (Alma 14:11)

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. 100 years ago, the First Presidency wrote: ‘And we again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.’

“Early in his presidency, our beloved President Spencer W. Kimball said, ‘We decry abortions and ask our people to refrain from this serious transgression.’

“Why destroy a life that could bring such joy to others?

“Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And ‘as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.’ Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.

“Yes, life is precious! No one can cuddle a cherished newborn baby, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers and caress that miraculous creation without deepening reverence for life and for our creator.

“Life comes from life. It is a gift from our Heavenly Father. It is eternal, as he is eternal. Innocent life is not sent by him to be destroyed! This doctrine is not of me, but is that of the living God and of his divine son, which I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

Abortion is such a big topic, and there are other rationalizations that people will give to explain their support. One concern not addressed by President Nelson in this particular talk but addressed by him in an October 2008 address called “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless” was the notion of perhaps not having the ability to take care of the child. He said:

“There are better ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. When a life is created by sinful behavior, the best way to begin personal repentance is to preserve the life of that child. To add another serious sin to a serious sin already committed only compounds the grief. Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion. Both the baby and the adoptive parents can be greatly blessed by the adoption of that baby into a home where the child will be lovingly nurtured and where the blessings of the gospel will be available.”

I know that as a male, President Nelson’s previous comments on the issue of abortion, and my commentary as part of this column, will be considered by many to be irrelevant. It has been said that men simply don’t have the right to have an opinion on what a woman chooses to do with her body. I would hope that as you read this, if you are inclined to have that viewpoint, you will be able to look at the arguments being made and the feelings being expressed rather than the sex of the person making and sharing them. As I said above, the thought of the destruction of helpless developing lives, and specifically the means by which those lives are terminated, guts me. Nobody should want abortion, and we should fight as hard as we can to avoid it. We certainly shouldn’t champion it, as if it’s a practice worth celebrating or as if our support is some sort of badge of honor. Every life has value, whether it’s a life that has been born into this world, or a life that was just created and is at the very beginning stages of development. I pray that we will do all we can to protect it, that we will want to do all that we can to protect it.

Contact Ryan Comer at rcomer@standard.net. Follow him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rbcomer8388.

Newsletter