Sauron,
Thank you for your interesting comments. I would like to respond to all of them, but I only have time for one or two subjects today. I plan on writing more later.
If your point is that the Republican Party is wrong on some issues, you’ll get no argument from me. In fact, I think everyone in the world has pretty much decided that the Republican Party is wrong on a lot of things. The more conservative elements of the party feel that the party has abandoned its core principles and needs to return to them. Some moderate elements feel that the conservative wing has too much influence, and wants to make the party more popular or “respond to changing times.†The other political parties of course think the Republicans are just wrong on many things.
In my experience Christians who are members of the Republican Party try very hard to make the party principles consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Christians may disagree with how to implement those principles, and there may be some minor differences of opinion on what those principles should be, but they are very sincere in this.
Typically the rhetoric I hear from non-Republicans is that Republican principles are inherently flawed. They feel that Republicans believe in a Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest, and the devil take the hind most. They feel that fundamentally Republicans don’t care about the environment or anyone else. They think that Republican principles are founded on motivations of greed and self-interest.
So, if your point was that Republicans are not trying to follow Jesus, or the party is based on corrupt principles, then I would think that Republicans should feel unjustly insulted. But if you believe that in the process of compromise and give and take that is inherent in forming a political party not led by prophets, Jesus Christ might not be completely satisfied with the resulting party, we would agree.
I can understand your belief that the Republican Party platform in regard to abortion is not exactly consistent with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The platform does not specifically state that rape, incest, and the life of a mother are exceptions to their opposition to abortion. The platform does not say these are or these are not exceptions. It is silent on the matter. In looking around I find that sources dominated by Democrats (most mainstream media) will tell you that the platform means that Republicans take a hard-line on abortion and admit no exceptions. Some will go even further and assure you that Republicans would make every instance of abortion illegal. That is not the feeling I get from reading sources favorable to Republicans.
I agree that phrases like “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,†sound rather absolute. As I understand it this phrase has been in the party platform for more than thirty years. But is it so cut and dry? Do the writers of the platform just see things in black and white?
Consider another phrase in the document, “Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.†To me, and lots of other people, this means that making abortion illegal in all cases is not the Republican platform. It is more subtle than that.
In my not-always-so-humble opinion the wording of the platform is a concession to elements within the party who want a strong, clear message about abortion. The great majority of Republicans do want some exceptions in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother. So, as a compromise with the most conservative people, the language is somewhat absolute sounding.
Now, is it wrong to state things this emphatically? Well, in my opinion, the scriptures often seem emphatic, absolute, and black and white: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal, neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.†(D&C 59:6) The scriptures don’t make the exceptions such as, “except when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.†That comes from inspired leaders, who I believe are right.
Many of the pro-life supporters in the Republican Party have been raised as Bible believing Christians. To them it is perfectly normal to have principles laid out absolutely, such as thou shall not kill, knowing that there are “exceptions.†The Lord approved of capital punishment. The Lord approved of sending Israel off to war to kill their enemies. But the Lord didn’t see fit to explain every exception when he gave the general principle. Neither do these Christians see fit to give every exception when they try to draft a set of principles to guide the Republican Party.
Now, if the Republican Party had explicitly stated, “except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother,†would you have been satisfied that the Republican Party platform on abortion was 100% consistent with the teachings of Jesus? I would not. Let me explain.
As you know, this is a statement of what we believe:
Gospel Topics:Abortion wrote:In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
The Church does not say that every case of pregnancy resulting from rape means the mother is morally justified in having an abortion. It is not an automatic justification of abortion. Only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer are they justified. Now, how can you state that in a political platform where most of the people don’t have local LDS Church leaders?
If you put in the exceptions your language justifies some abortions; some of which may be morally right, and some of which are morally wrong. Wouldn’t it be contrary to the teachings of Jesus to justify abortions which are morally wrong? I think the result, in a non-denominational political party, would be even further from the teachings of Jesus than without the exceptions. As you say, “Anyway, I'd rather vote radically "pro-life" than lean an inch ‘pro-choice.’â€
I think a document like the Party platform is meant to give guidance and summarize a consensus of how the Party should approach an issue. It is not a detailed handbook on how to write new legislation. It is understood that in the political process there will be compromise and give and take. But the platform provides a philosophical point of principles to begin negotiations.
My conclusion is that the Republican Party platform in regard to abortion, as currently worded, is what Jesus Christ would inspire to be written in such a document.
