It seems most of my religious friends view abortion as a critical point in deciding their vote this election. My recent post, “The Meek in the Middle,” has led me to consider where is the middle ground on this important and polarizing topic.

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think this talk deserves closer study, although not on abortion directly, by President Dallin H. Oaks, “Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination.” In the video of his talk, the host said he “labor long and hard over these remarks” and was “anxious” about how they would be received.

He said, “As a practical basis for co-existence, we should accept the reality that we are fellow citizens who need each other. This requires us to accept some laws we dislike, and to live peacefully with some persons whose values differ from our own. Amid such inevitable differences, we should make every effort to understand the experiences and concerns of others, especially when they differ from our own.”  

Impact Upon Society

The actions and lives of others in our community impact our lives, not just their own, even when done in private because we live in a community.  For example, recreational drug use even when legal means individuals can diminish their ability to care for themselves and those around them with each use.  As someone once said, drugs are for people with mental capacities they wish they did not possess.  Diminished mental capacities means they will make poorer choices; and since we live in a democracy, their poorer choices will impact me. 

The impact of abortion upon others in our society is even more serious, because it is about the weakest among us and how we care for and about them. Next to birth, our next most vulnerable time in life is near its end. If we don’t care for the unborn, we are unlikely to care for those near death, some place all now living will experience. As it was said of the Holocaust, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Religious Freedom

If we want religious freedom we need to accommodate it, which means finding ways of compromising on some matters in the name of unity. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that he was “just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination [as for a member of the church]; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), 345.)

So what beliefs would the Prophet defend from these other religions?  If only beliefs that were in common with Latter-day Saints, the statement would be meaningless.  How about a less controversial example.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in infant baptism.  The teachings on this are very clear (See Moroni 8).  Those who practice this belief understate the power of God and the Atonement, affecting our community because people have diminished belief in the power of Christ to save the innocent.Yet Joseph Smith said he was willing to defend the beliefs of Catholics. If he would defend the right of Catholics to practice infant baptism,  he was accommodating a practice he did not believe in.   

If I am not willing to accommodate differences from my beliefs, then others will not defend my right to believe something different.

Church Policy

The following is the policy of the church:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

“The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

“Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

“The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” (“Abortion“)  

My Middle Ground

Based upon the data below from two different newspapers, I have attempted to understand the position of those who advocate for abortion. I think those that matter–the vast majority of society–hold positions much, much less extreme than the extremes on either the right or the left believe.

I am quite confident I have never met a person that believes that abortion of a child in the minutes before natural birth should be a right of the mother. Nearly everyone would view such as infanticide.

At the other extreme, with more widespread infertility, our society’s understanding of the tenuous nature of a mass of cells immediately after conception has grown. Again, few in our society would call a fertilized egg a baby–it has the potential to be a baby, but it is not one yet.

So the question is when in the progression from conception to birth does infanticide begin?

Based upon the data below, a simple majority of American’s agree it begins at a minimum at the point of fetal viability, 20 to 22 weeks from conception. And indeed as shown in the data below, a case can be made that out of respect for life, it should be prohibited perhaps at 15 weeks of gestation.

This is the space for serious discussion about what to accommodate.

In the end, the discussion about abortion is really closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. It’s hard for me to support “elective abortion for personal or social convenience.” The issue is not abortion, but extra-material sex.

This is the space we should spend much more effort to affect in our society because this practice has much greater impact upon our society than does abortion. We could start with being much less tolerant of pornography which is victimization of the subject and the consumer, the starting point for so many problems in our society. An energetic debate in this space would be much more productive.

Data about Society

To find appropriate positions for our society, we need to understand the views of others. Here are two data points I have found useful. The first is from The Arizona Republic about when the vast majority of abortions are occur.

“Abortions after 21 weeks historically have been extremely rare, according to state health records. . . . In 2022, only 25 out of 11,400 abortions happened between 20 and 21 weeks, according to data from the Arizona Department of Health Services’ report on abortion in the state. Abortions beyond 21 weeks and closer to the average birth at 40 weeks ‘represented less than 1 percent of the total abortions among Arizona residents, a proportion similar to the number reported over the past years,’ read the report.” (Arizona Republic “Would Prop. 139 allow abortion up to birth?” by Rey Covarrubias Jr., October 27, 2024)

One percent of 11,400 would be 114. Adding those between 20 and 21 weeks would be close to 150 total abortions performed beyond 20 weeks in Arizona in 2022. By comparison, speeding was a factor 436 deaths in 2022, almost 3 times as many (Arizona ADOT News “Traffic fatalities in Arizona dip slightly in 2023,” July 12, 2024), but no one is thinking of enshrining speeding laws in state constitutions.

I felt this editorial from the Dallas Morning News was a balanced analysis of our needs as a secular society to accommodate each other, and yet avoid moral extremes.

“Roe Was Wrong, But New Law Needed” (Dallas Morning News, June 25, 2022.)

“A federal standard should set abortion limits with no prohibition in the first trimester

“Abortion is an all but impossible moral puzzle that no political or judicial system can ever hope to fully resolve.

“It is too entwined with the deepest questions of what it means to be human.

“Yet, despite the simplifying political slogans that define the abortion debate, and despite the polarizing effect that debate has had on our national politics, most people intuitively understand that abortion, as both an idea and an action, is deeply complex, legally and morally.

“They also sense that there is a political solution.

“No, it will not answer the question of when life begins. Nor will it satisfy those who think abortion should never be permissible, or those who believe that the law should offer only the most limited protection to the unborn.

“But we believe it can gain the acceptance of a broad majority of Americans.

“Polling over many years and from many reputable organizations indicates that a majority of Americans think abortion should be legal but differ on the point in pregnancy at which it should become illegal. A Pew poll in March showed that among abortion rights supporters, 56% agreed that the stage of pregnancy should matter in whether abortion is legal. The same poll showed that among abortion opponents, some 78% believe there are circumstances when abortion should be permitted.

“As pregnancy advances, fewer people think abortion should be legal. Pew found that 34% of Americans think it should be legal at 14 weeks, and 22% think it should be legal at 24 weeks. About a fifth of Americans have mixed feelings and said their stance on abortion at those stages would depend on the circumstances.

“Other polls have generated similar results.

“That should tell us that there is an opportunity for broader political agreement around abortion than the public debate would suggest.

“But getting to a political solution requires moving beyond a legal ruling that interrupted the democratic process.

“Beginning in the 1960s and before 1973, the nation was moving toward a state-by-state codification of abortion that demonstrated a political recognition that abortion should not be entirely prohibited but that there comes a point in a pregnancy when it should no longer be permitted. The most liberal law was in New York, which in 1970 permitted abortion through the 24th week of pregnancy.

“As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a 1992 speech for the Madison Lecture series, this political development was overrun by the decision in Roe vs. Wade. In prior cases where the court sought to invalidate antiquated laws that discriminated based on sex, it “opened a dialogue with the political branches of government,” requiring state legislatures to reexamine their positions. But in giving itself the power to decide the moral question of abortion, the court fashioned ‘a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force.’

“This was a judicial error that deepened a national division that has now affected every part of political life. Roe was, as a majority of the Supreme Court has ruled, wrongly decided. There is no historical basis for the inclusion of abortion as an unenumerated right within the Constitution’s named rights.

“Nor is the question of abortion rights comparable to other important questions of individual rights decided by the court. It stands apart because it impacts the potential and reality of human life that no other question in law approaches.

“Had Roe not been decided as it was, with the Supreme Court prescribing what was essentially a legislative solution, it is possible to imagine a history wherein the nation’s political process moved toward a federal law that recognized both a woman’s right to electively end a pregnancy in its early stages and that struck the intuitive moral balance that so many people have come to accept.

“That did not happen. The court’s decision today opens the opportunity for the country to respond with a national law that offers the balance a majority of people already recognize.

“It is important at this point to remember that the Mississippi statute that led to the fall of Roe acknowledges this balance. The Gestational Age Act would permit “nontherapeutic or elective abortion” up to the 15th week of gestation, around the end of the first trimester. Consistent polling show most Americans favor first-trimester abortions but that support drops in later stages of pregnancy.

“The law sets forth that point in time because it recognizes that the “majority of abortion procedures” performed after 15 weeks involve the surgical crushing, dissection and evacuation of the fetus.

“Roe also sought to establish a period of time after which abortion could be banned by the states. It created a ‘viability’ standard around the end of the second trimester as it acknowledged that, once a fetus reached a stage when it could survive outside the womb, states had a compelling interest in what the ruling called ‘the potentiality of human life.’

“Note that Roe — the landmark ruling for federal abortion rights — and Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act — the law that led to Roe’s undoing — both accept that abortion at some stage should be legal.

“And they both identify a stage in pregnancy after which elective abortion can be or will be prohibited. That is because there comes a point in pregnancy when the development of human life is so apparent it is offensive to basic morality to terminate the fetus in an elective abortion.

“These facts should suggest to most people that there is a political path forward, even as we acknowledge that path will be difficult.

“It is complicated by the adoption in many states, including Texas, of so-called trigger laws that effectively prohibit elective abortion. The existence of such laws creates that much more urgency for congressional action.

“This will require more than slogans and marches. It will require genuine democratic consideration of a federal standard that places clear limits on elective abortion but does not prohibit it in the first trimester.

“Reaching such a standard will be a painful process, beyond state laws that are so restrictive or so permissive that they are morally unacceptable to a majority of people on different sides of this question.

“We are in this struggle for a reason. The question of legal abortion is hugely consequential.

“The morally troubling impact of wholesale prohibitions on abortion rights are too innumerable to list — from forcing rape victims to carry their attacker’s child to driving desperate women and girls to dangerous situations to get illegal abortions.

“That said, the idea of abortion as simply another medical procedure between a woman and her doctor, as routine as any other procedure, is untenable.

“The understanding that life is developing or present in a mother’s womb is innate to us. It is why we understand the heavy moral burden of the abortion question.

“The legal precedent we had was improperly decided.

“The law we need must arise from a democratic process at the federal level. It will not resolve every difference. But leaving the question to the states will only divide our nation further.

“We must have faith that the people, as best they can, will balance this most serious moral concern.”

(This blog post is dated July 2022 because the majority of it was written then, but not posted publicly.)