When Moral Issues Become Political Issues - by Ray DeGraw

Editor’s Note: The author is an active, believing member who has served and continues to serve in many callings in the Church. His political opinions and religious views are “all over the map, depending on the issue,” as he puts it, and he does not wish to be indentified as an LDS Lefty or be classified with any particular label that would imply things to others. In his own words, he says, “I'm not a classification; I'm an individual who supports the Brethren fully while trying to obtain and follow personal revelation.” With his permission, we are pleased to feature this brief essay that we think so eloquently outlines how to examine moral issues that enter the political arena.

Once a moral issue enters the political arena, it no longer is just a moral issue. It becomes a political issue, subject to different forces and obligations and stresses and interpretations ad infinitum than when it was “just” a moral issue. This is not the thread for it, but abortion is a perfect example of this. How I feel about it as a strictly “personal moral issue” varies radically from how I feel about it as a political, legal issue. That’s the core reason why the Church can and should comment on moral issues while not attempting to dictate political action.

This essay fleshes out that foundational claim – that once a moral issue enters the political arena, it is OK for Mormons to vote differently than they might preach.

My moral stance on abortion is, unsurprisingly, that of the Church: Abortion is not murder, and it is not inherently a sin in all cases, but it is a serious action that should be undertaken only in specific situations – like rape or incest, when the mother’s life is in danger, or when the fetus cannot survive birth. Furthermore, it should not be automatic even in these situations.(1)

When abortion enters the political arena, however, my stance changes radically. The same statement in the Church’s website Newsroom also includes a concluding statement, which rarely is quoted in these discussions:

“The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

Why not? As a political issue, there are three options:

1. Always prohibit abortions – not consistent with the Church’s moral stance;

2. Always allow abortions – not consistent with the Church’s moral stance;

3. Allow some and prohibit other abortions – can be consistent with the Church’s moral stance.

It would appear that I should support #3 as the basis for legislation. I don’t. I support #2 (even practices like partial-birth abortion, which I find simply revolting and barbaric in theory, but absolutely necessary in strictly limited instances) instead of #3, for the following reasons:

1. Exceptions must be decided through compromise among differing beliefs. Most who accept exceptions would support abortion in situations where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but many don’t. I think most would support exceptions for cases of rape and incest, but many don’t. Fewer support a doctor’s determination that the fetus won’t survive birth, since there is an element of subjectivity in some cases. Compromise that does not include the exceptions the Church allows would be in direct violation of my own moral code – forcing birth in situations where I believe the parents (including my wife and I) should be able to choose abortion, if necessary in their situation. I can’t support that.

2. It would be fairly easy for a doctor who is committed to abortion as an option for all to over-estimate the danger to the mother’s life if an abortion was desired. In order to address this potential conflict, the courts would be required to assign a second doctor to verify the initial diagnosis, but this doctor would be just as likely to be opposed to abortion as an option. If so, the verification might be withheld for many women whose decisions I would support otherwise. I can’t support that.

3. The most tricky situation legally is in cases of rape. Here’s what’s tricky about it:

• For abortions in these cases to be allowed, there would have to be a charge made of rape.

• Any charge would necessitate an investigation.

• An investigation would require the possibility of a trial.

• Typical investigations and trials cannot be undertaken and completed in nine months – especially in cases that might boil down to “she said/he said”. In reality, these cases actually would have a “prosecutorial window” of only about 4-6 months – since the pregnancy might not be known until the second month and would need to be terminated prior to the third trimester in order to avoid late-term abortions that would never receive legal support.

• In these situations, to be a viable option, an abortion would have to be possible before the completion of any legal action to determine the validity of the claim.

• Rape cases are difficult to prove, but under this “exception” construct, abortions should not be allowed for spurious accusations.

• Therefore, these cases would need to be expedited to reach a conviction that would justify the abortion occurring.

• The cases that should not be rushed, ever, are explicitly those that are the most difficult to prove. Such a focus makes it less likely that the charge will be substantiated, meaning that legitimate cases have a greatly reduced chance of being proven – meaning that the perpetrator has a greatly enhanced chance of being acquitted.

• If abortions are granted on the basis of the accusation, in order to address the nearly impossible task of convicting within 3-4 months of the charge being made, the courts would need to be willing to punish women who make spurious claims in order to have that abortion. Otherwise, a charge of rape would become the automatic action of any woman desiring an abortion, effectively legislating the allowance of abortion in any situation.

• The near impossibility of determining guilt in some cases, even when the accusation is valid, would mean that many women would be punished for having to make the case in a shortened time frame – for making a claim that is difficult to prove in an expedited time frame.

• The possibility of being prosecuted for making a valid but unprovable accusation would have the practical effect of scaring many women away from making such an accusation, thus effectively legislating option #1 for many in the guise of #3. I can’t support that.

Given that I can’t support outlawing all abortions, and that I can’t support outlawing all abortions with the exceptions of rape, health of the mother and viability of the baby, all that is left for me is to leave the decision in the hands of the individual mother (and father, where applicable) and let them deal with the moral consequences of their decisions.

Morally, I am opposed to abortion, but I allow for exceptions; politically, I oppose legislation that restricts abortion in any way that would not address the issues I articulated here. I have yet to see a proposal which I can support.

Abortion is just one example of this conundrum. Morality dictates our individual choices, but as has been said elsewhere: “You can’t legislate morality.” That statement is usually taken to mean that you cannot force people to behave morally. This example illustrates why it is also impractical.


NOTES

1. http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion

A Leftist Mormon In France - by Laurent Lechifflart

What does it mean to be "mormon de gauche" (leftist mormon) in France?

First you must keep in mind that the political spectrum is much wider in France, from neo-trotskyist far left to monarchist far right. And it is also wider among French Saints than among their US church fellows – even though extremists of both sides are quite rare in the Church.

Another major difference is that the "moderate" left and right in France are more left than their US counterparts. Many positions considered "leftist" in the US are here quite consensual across the French political chessboard. Socialized medical insurance, legal abortion, civil union for gays, right of strike, separation of church and state (among many others) are accepted by the moderate rightist parties. This is why the moral issues (abortion, gay rights) are not considered by French Saints as politically deciding.

Another point to consider, in spite of a largely accepted separation of churches and state, is the strong, traditional ties between the French conservative parties and the Catholic Church, which represents about 85% of the population. This makes many Saints uncomfortable when dealing with the conservative parties. For instance, they are shocked when president Sarközy (a conservative) addresses the pope in public as "très saint père" (most holy father).

All those reasons explain why a bigger proportion of Mormons in France vote for leftist parties or are involved in workers unions than in the US.

This said, it is hard to find which proportion of French Saints are leftists. The first reason is that two subjects in France are not usually brought up in conversation, including by church members: money and politics. When two French people speak together, they most likely talk about cooking!

Another reason is that the Church is perceived by the French Saints as "conservative". Even though the Church remains strictly neutral on political issues, the overwhelming strength of the Republican vote among US saints is well known here. The problem is that many Mormons here consider their brothers from across the ocean as models. This is why some might feel "out of standard" - if not "guilty" - for leaning to the left, and keep quiet about it.

Once two or more "mormons de gauche" have identified each other as such, they talk more freely of political issues. From such conversations I've had so far, it seems that there is not much difference between them and other French leftists. All those I know (including myself) strongly supported Chirac (even though he was a conservative) in his adamant opposition against the war in Iraq. They opposed the recent return of France into NATO military commandment. They consider Sarközy as a dangerous sorcerer's apprentice who is endangering the "French social model" which has existed since the end of World War II. They would like the government more involved in the economy, especially to restrain the immorality of wild capitalism. They support the European Union as an instrument of peace but reject its dogma of unrestrained economical competition. They want strong public services (education, electricity, railways, etc.) and don't want them to be dismantled and sold to private operators. They want a better protection of environment. And last but not least, they are saddened by the "war of the chiefs" that weakens the Socialist Party (second party in the country and main party of the moderate left).

A Response to Pro-Lifers: Pro-Death? - by Rick Thomas

There is an unsettling preference by quite a few in the Church and the on-line community in particular, to call the morality and decency of the left-view point into question. This is unfortunate. For this reason, I have decided, at least for the extent of this article, to claim the title of "Pro-death" - since I find myself in a contrary position to that normally taken by those who refer to themselves as “Pro-life” on just about every issue.

I am Pro-death. On one level, this means that I am not anti-abortion. Sure, I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (I don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see an unproblematic, fool-proof way of proving rape and incest — especially in the case of those who are victimized and unable to produce DNA evidence before it’s too late — and therefore can’t understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level. Therefore, I don't think it is a reasonable or helpful legislation to society as a whole. For this reason, I am generally in favor of not legislating abortion — though I think there should be some sort of parental consent, doctor's consent, etc. So, I am Pro-death on the issue of abortion.

But, is that all?

Am I also Pro-death on the issue of animal rights? I would never choose to define myself that way - I do it, because it seems that my point of view is against the stand taken by Pro-lifers. I feel that human kind's gross misuse of animal products and its blatant disregard for animal life is detestable. I am not a member of PETA and disagree with their occasionally violent approach, but I do think that legislation against over-consumption is a good idea — even if that meant putting some industrialized beef farmers out of business. I could only imagine how the families of the poor unemployed beef farmer might suffer when Dad's current livelihood is brought to a halt. I do consider myself an animal rights activist. There is a prevalent stereotype that animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research. I could argue that, but won’t bother at this point. I am already claiming to be pro-death, after all.

I am also pro-death because I see some amount of value in stem-cell research (as I see some amount of value in animal research — if done humanely and respectfully — for important reasons, and not cosmetics and other useless products). I don't consider embryonic stem-cells to be in the same class as a live human. Pro-death, all the way.

I am also Pro-death when it comes to the human population. My wife and I have decided to have only 1 or 2 children by means of natural birth, and to adopt another 1 or 2 from suffering countries. We feel honestly that increasing the population of the earth at this stage is irresponsible, particularly when there are so many children that are not receiving the basic needs of human life and are dying in third-world countries.

I further feel that trying to "reduce our carbon footprint," besides being very in vogue right now (green is the new black), is a seriously important commitment for people of faith to make. We are the stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to it. There comes a certain point where we cease being responsible and instead, become addicted or obsessed to a certain way of life that has been engrained in us by generations of Christian breeding mixed with the supreme quality in neo-natal and pediatric health care. The earth has been replenished. It doesn't need to be destroyed by us — God's crowning creations. In fact, I'm so Pro-death that I'd encourage others who are in a position to seriously ponder making a similar choice, as I sincerely feel it to be right — at least for me and my family.

Following my 1-2 children, I plan on procuring some change to ensure that I don't have more. Indeed, I will intentionally do things to stop a pregnancy from occurring. I will interfere with the natural processes of human sexuality and reproduction and, "play god" to some extent to ensure that my wife and I don't have a pregnancy that we're not prepared for. I see very little difference between unfertilized reproductive cells, and fertilized ones. If this makes me pro-death, then so be it. However, I am positive that most people, in and out of the church, make a similar choice all of the time.

Indeed, Scripture states:

“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.” (D&C 104: 17)

Remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion — as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 — about 200 years later. There definitely was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned -- thanks to our gross over consumption. I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and its needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Is this really Pro-death?

I am also Pro-death when it comes to dying. I sincerely believe that when a person is in constant pain, suffering, sorrow, and physical anguish — when it will NOT get better over the course of his or her natural lifespan — that it is only charitable and loving to allow that person to gracefully exit this life. I’ve read what the official church's stance is. That has no bearing on what I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts to be the most charitable and loving approach. Pro-death, one more time.

Because of my stance on these issues, does that make me a champion for human death? I recognize that my opinions will often differ from many of yours — maybe even all of you. I do not, however, truly feel myself to be Pro-death. I simply feel that I view things from a different perspective. Extremes on both sides (blowing up a research lab to blowing up an abortion clinic) are wrong. Avoiding those extremes, let’s work to garner a healthy respect for BOTH points of view, rather than make one the champion of life and the other the champion of... death.