“We do not know when the spirit enters the body. We do not know FULL STOP.”
This comment was left in response to an article titled “What About Agency?,” which was written by Latter-day Saints for Life cofounder, Jessica Spackman, and published in The Times and Seasons. The comment above was left by a (presumed) Latter-day Saint and left quite an impression on me, mostly because I've heard this argument used by many Latter-day Saints before. Sometimes I hear it used as a wishy-washy way of explaining why Latter-day Saints aren’t particularly involved in the pro-life movement. Other times I’ve heard it used as a vehement argument for opposing the Church’s stance on abortion.
So, it really did get me thinking: exactly what has been said about when a spirit enters the body, and, more importantly, is this a relevant question when it comes to the issue of abortion?
So let's go “full start” on this topic and dive right in!
Why Does It Matter?
Before we get into whether or not we know when a spirit enters a body, let’s review the basics of the Plan of Salvation to understand why this question matters in the first place.
Before we were born on earth, all of us lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father in the premortal world. We accepted Heavenly Father’s plan for us to become like Him and were sent to earth to gain a physical body and experience mortal challenges. Our Savior atoned for our sins, which allows us to repent. After the death of our physical bodies, our spirits live on, separated from our body until the resurrection, which is a free gift given to all because of Christ’s Atonement. After our physical body and spirit have been reunited, we will be judged by our Heavenly Father for our actions and the desires of our hearts.
Is It True?
Now that we’ve covered some basics, let's ask the question: Do we know when a spirit enters the body?
As far as I can determine, the Church does NOT have a policy or doctrine regarding the specific question of when a spirit enters the body. Here are some statements made by modern prophets that have relevance to the topic.
Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless by Russell M. Nelson (2008):
“In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother… [and] a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. To legislate when a developing life is considered ‘meaningful’ is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.”
The Great Plan of Happiness by Dallin H. Oaks (1993):
“Our attitude toward abortion is not based on revealed knowledge of when mortal life begins for legal purposes.”
The Sanctity of Life by James E. Faust (1975):
“Some time before birth the body and the spirit are united. When they do come together, we have a human soul. For the Lord has said, “And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (D&C 88:15.).”
The Question of “Valuable Life”
Since it has not been revealed to us at what point before birth a spirit enters the body, what does this mean? I think it would be safe to say that the argument of when the spirit enters the body is the Latter-day Saint version of the personhood argument for abortion. If you aren’t familiar, here is an excellent definition of the personhood argument from the Equal Right Institute (2020):
“These are pro-choice arguments that deny the personhood of the unborn child. In other words, they say that the human embryo doesn’t have the same equal rights as people. These arguments about personhood definitions largely dominate the philosophical literature on abortion. People argue about what constitutes a person and then explain how the human embryo does or does not qualify. Notice that this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science tells us what is killed during abortion: an embryo or fetus that is living, whole, and human. Philosophy tells us whether or not that human embryo’s life is valuable.”
This relates directly to the question of whether or not unborn bodies in the womb are inhabited by a spirit. The question by Latter-day Saints of when a spirit enters a developing body in the womb is quite similar to the question of whether (or when) the unborn child is meaningful or valuable.
What Are They Actually Saying?
If you read my last article “The Way We Talk About Abortion Matters: One Key to Better Conversations,” you’ll know that I’m an advocate for listening to what an abortion proponent is actually saying before we respond to them. I’m also a proponent of trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, as this is how we have productive discussions with people about abortion (or any controversial topic really). With that in mind, let’s try to frame this argument the way a Latter-day Saint who is pro-choice might intend it, and then talk about its potential conclusions.
Argument: We don’t know when the spirit enters the body, so therefore….
Conclusions:
There should be no government oversight when it comes to abortion, as only the pregnant mother knows if a spirit has entered the unborn child’s body yet or not. (In other words, ALL abortions should be legal).
We should only ban certain abortions, like those that are really far along. (In other words, SOME abortions should be legal. This conclusion could lead to various gestational limits.)
Now, I am going to offer the three main objections which I have to this argument and its subsequent conclusions.
Objection 1: Either conclusion is illogical.
Objection 2: It is an abuse of doctrine.
Objection 3: The overall argument is not relevant to the question of elective abortions.
Objection #1: Either Conclusion Is Illogical
In order to explain why I think the above conclusions are highly illogical, let’s start with an old philosophical argument called Pascal’s Wager. This was an argument put forth by Blaise Pascal in the 15th century in which he argues that given the choice to believe in God or not to believe in God, the better wager is to believe in God, as the benefits of doing so, given the promise of an eternal life of happiness, outweigh any drawbacks.
Here’s a quick A.I. overview I found from the web that describes this wager:
If God exists:
Believing in God results in an infinite gain, such as an eternity in heaven, while not believing results in an infinite loss, such as an eternity in hell.
If God does not exist:
Believing in God results in a finite loss, such as sacrificing some pleasures, while not believing results in a finite gain.
Now of course, I am not saying that this argument is doctrinally correct, but I am putting it forward as a comparison to the wager of whether a spirit is present before birth or not. Gambling on whether or not a spirit is present in the body of an unborn baby has enormous moral consequences.
If an abortion is committed, and there is no spirit present:
Then a woman has escaped a difficult situation and there is no loss.
But, if an abortion is committed and there IS a spirit present:
Then a woman has escaped a difficult situation, but a son or daughter of God has been killed. The abortionist has killed another human being and the mother was complicit in this, making both accountable before God.
To put it another way, imagine that there is an abandoned building scheduled to be demolished. When the demolition specialist arrives on the scene, he is informed by his employee that the building is “empty.” However, just before he orders the demolition, another worker informs him that they had a recent report stating that several children “may have been seen” entering the building an hour prior. The demolition specialist looks at his employee and states “Well, we don't know if there are people inside or not, so we should demolish the building.” The employee follows orders, and the building is destroyed. Has the demolition specialist done anything wrong? Well, most people would say yes. There may have been innocent human beings inside the building, so one is obligated to act accordingly. Similarly, it would be wrong to argue that abortion is acceptable when we do not know if a spirit is present.
Objection #2: An Abuse of Doctrine
This is going to be a quick one, but I find it strange that a pro-choice advocate using this argument is willing to make an argument off of what we do NOT know (e.g. when a spirit enters the body), but isn’t looking at what we actually DO know, which is that we should heed the words of scripture and living prophets. Here is the Church’s stance on abortion:
“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.”
In other words, it is clear that we understand abortion to be a serious sin. “Possible exceptions” mean just that, possible exceptions. The Church’s policy on abortion does not allow for elective abortions, meaning an abortion performed on a healthy fetus for “personal or social convenience.” This policy is not subject to someone’s opinion on when a spirit enters the body.
Objection #3: The Argument Does NOT Have Relevance to Why the Church Opposes Abortion:
What do I mean by this? This quote from Neil L. Anderson (2021) helps to illustrate this:
“Some may question if life begins with the formation of an embryo, or when the heart begins to beat, or when the baby can live outside of the womb, but for us, there is no question that spirit daughters and sons of God are on their own personal journeys coming to earth to receive a body and experience mortality. As covenant children of God, we love, honor, nurture, safeguard, and welcome those spirits who are coming from the premortal world. May we always remember that each spirit child of God is coming to earth on his or her own personal journey.”
Here is another one by Dallin H. Oaks (1993) that explains this idea:
“The ultimate act of destruction is to take a life. That is why abortion is such a serious sin. Our attitude toward abortion is not based on revealed knowledge of when mortal life begins for legal purposes. It is fixed by our knowledge that according to an eternal plan all of the spirit children of God must come to this earth for a glorious purpose, and that individual identity began long before conception and will continue for all the eternities to come. We rely on the prophets of God, who have told us that while there may be ‘rare’ exceptions, ‘the practice of elective abortion is fundamentally contrary to the Lord’s injunction, ‘Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it’ (D&C 59:6)’.”
What does this mean? Because we know that we are sent to this earth as spirits in order to receive a body, and we know that the body is sacred and part of God's plan for our exaltation, an elective abortion (which involves the destruction of a body in which a spirit is designed to inhabit) is contrary to God’s plan. The fact that we do not know exactly when a spirit enters the body before birth does not have bearing on this truth.
Bringing It All Back Around
“We do not know when the spirit enters the body. We do not know FULL STOP.”
Sure, we don’t know, but that isn’t the point. Based on what we do know, elective abortion is contrary to God’s plan for his children, and should never be defended by those who seek to follow him.
Comments