Pro-Abortion still on the aganda!!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I'm not OA, but I will answer your questions:

1. No. I KNOW abortions of any kind are not performed in North American (one hospital in Trinidad, West Indies, may be an exception - I don't know), South American, or Australian hospitals "with the name of Seventh Day Adventist on them." I don't know if they do abortions in hospitals "with the name of Seventh Day Adventist on them" in Africa or Asia. There are only 8 hospitals in those regions "with the name Seventh Day Adventist on them."

2. Since I don't think it is true (and I'm assuming - perhaps incorrectly - that you are referring to hospitals in the United States), question #2 is moot.

But thank you for the questions.

p.s. It is foolish to ask questions in a manner designed to prove one's position, when one has not done one's research.

Please, it doesn't do any good to not believe the ugly truth....that doesn't change the ugly truth.... If you all would just face the ugly truth, perhaps something could be done about it, but sticking your head in the sand and not believing it, isn't the way to make it go away.

Kevin Paulson, a current Pastor in the NY Conference, wrote a paper on abortion in the SDA Church. Here is a paragraph from his paper:

Originally Posted By: Kevin Paulson

Regarding the performing of abortions in Adventist hospitals, perhaps it would be wise to avoid this as much as possible. Even if the practice can't be condemned on inspired grounds, it can place a needless stumbling block before the weak in faith (I Cor. 8:9). The church might be wise to return to its more restrictive earlier policies on this matter, which limited abortions in our medical facilities to cases of rape, incest, mental retardation, or danger to the mother's health or life. So long as abortion services are available elsewhere, this would probably be best.

And notice, it is not only performing abortions of babies who are conceived by rape and incest, mental retardation or when the mother's life is in danger. Notice also, that he believes that according to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, abortions "can't be condemned on inspired grounds".

So please stop arguing that abortions for any and all reasons are not being done in SDA hospitals...it is a known and ugly fact. Now, the question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to continue to not believe it, because that is the easy way to deal with it?

Which part of my response to your first two questions do you not understand?

Again:

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

1. No. I KNOW abortions of any kind are not performed in North American (one hospital in Trinidad, West Indies, may be an exception - I don't know), South American, or Australian hospitals "with the name of Seventh Day Adventist on them." I don't know if they do abortions in hospitals "with the name of Seventh Day Adventist on them" in Africa or Asia. There are only 8 hospitals in those regions "with the name Seventh Day Adventist on them."

2. Since I don't think it is true (and I'm assuming - perhaps incorrectly - that you are referring to hospitals in the United States), question #2 is moot.

I stand by what I wrote. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. Abortions are done every day in the United States. But not in hospitals you described in your original two questions. Please read what I wrote until you understand. If you don't understand, please re-read it as necessary, until the light dawns.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

"Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has 'as many children as he can support,' instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten.

"The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of this crime...." {A Solemn Appeal by James & Ellen White p. 100}

Regarding the above quote Richard cited...it was taken almost word for word in 1870 from an essay published in 1868 by HORATIO ROBINSON STORER, M.D. In that essay, he also states, thusly:

Quote:

It may be asked if there is no latitude to be allowed for extreme cases of the character already described. We are compelled to answer, None. If each woman were allowed to judge for herself in this matter, her decision upon the abstract question would be too sure to be warped by personal considerations, and those of the moment: Woman's mind is prone to depression, and, indeed, to temporary actual derangement, under the stimulus of uterine excitation , and this alike at the time of puberty and the final cessation of the menses, at the monthly period and at conception, during pregnancy, at labor, and during lactation; a matter that also seems to have been more thoroughly investigated by the authority I have so freely drawn from in reference to the question of abortion, than by any other writer in this country. During the state of gestation the woman is therefore liable to thoughts, convictions even, that at other times she would turn from in disgust or dismay; and in this fact, that must be as familiar to herself as it is to the physician, we find her most valid excuse for the crime.

source

Tell me, all you mothers out there in ForumVille: were you really deranged by uterine excitement? Why didn't E & J White include this in their little plagiarized thesis? Or did they, and nobody's talking about it? I hadn't been aware that temporary derangement occurs during "uterine stimulation" (now what could that mean?), or at puberty, or during menses, at the time of conception, during pregnancy, at labor, or during lactation. It would seem that women are just mentally deranged all the time from puberty onward. Goodness gracious.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

It appears that Shane has resorted to mocking what he doesn't accept.

You have to roll with the punches...

....and not punch back if you're really a peace and love sorta guy!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

The General Conference Abortion Decision 1970-71".An abreviated portion of that paper was published in the May 1989 issue of Spectrum magazine. It is probably the only factual documentation of SDA involvment in the abortion debate.

My life is too short to read anything in Spectrum Magazine. They seem to really getting into creating division and strife in the church. I am more of a unity and love kind of a guy.

This is adolescent Spectrum May 1989 not today's mature church UFC participant. The issue contains a whole Spectrum of views on abortion and the only real documentation (though abbreviated)of the church's participation in the abortion question up thru the time of it's writing ( mid 1980's?).It's only conclusion was to point out the church's failure to give it's members a clear picture of where the denomination wanted to take a stand (some things never change)on the question of abortion.Some of the other articles were defensive of abortion,some were critical of it,this was neither.Nic's dissertation simply takes the documented facts of Gainer's research and adds commentary. The posts here at CA verify the validity of Gainer's research and further document the church's continued failure to provide moral and policy clarity to it's membership. The fact that both those who oppose abortion and those who oppose those who oppose abortion use the "guidelines"to validate their perspectives demonstrates something other than one side is right and one side is wrong.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

There is no "official" church position so there's nothing to distort about it.

Wrong.

Guidelines on Abortion

Wrong!! You're quoting "guidelines" to prove "position"

[Overaged]

I think there are some pretty major differences in the wording of what EGW wrote, and what this other person you quoted has written; "plagiarism" would be hard to prove, definitively, but the guy is right. I took that years ago in nursing that abortions can and do affect the hormones like this. It's one of several very good reasons for women to NOT go ahead with abortions.

One of the most unfortunate things in this debate is how people like Nic, Tammy, or Doug keep saying that the church supports murder because some professing Adventists, or Adventist institutions professing the name are getting away with doing it. The official statements about it do not support that kind of belief.

[Stan]

In reading the guidelines..

It is almost like they provide you with the information, and let you make the decision yourself.

Sounds like a cult to me :)

[Overaged]

Paulson & Kirkpatrick have argued for years against almost everything the church does. I would not be so fast to latch on to what Paulson says without examining other opinions.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

There is no "official" church position so there's nothing to distort about it.

Wrong.

Well, it isn't quite the same as the Catholic position but there it is.

Right!! And you might also note that the editor of the "official"(The Review IS the official publication of the SDA church) church magazine clearly stated that the "guidelines" were not to be understood as an "official position".If you want the reference I'll give it when I get back from church--Lord willing.

[Overaged]

In reading the guidelines..

It is almost like they provide you with the information, and let you make the decision yourself.

Sounds like a cult to me

That's why people call us a "cult." I have always wondered.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Wrong.

Well' date=' it isn't quite the same as the Catholic position but there it is./quote'] Right!! And you might also note that the editor of the "official"(The Review IS the official publication of the SDA church) church magazine clearly stated that the "guidelines" were not to be understood as an "official position".If you want the reference I'll give it when I get back from church--Lord willing.

That has already been brought out in other discussions on this forum Doug, so save yourself the trouble. But what we do know is that anything the General Conference has written about abortions, (official or unofficial) or anything related to abortions, is that they don't support murder.

[doug yowell]

Put yo glasses on Doug. I said you were "promoting a deliberate lie." Where did I say you were a liar? The "deliberate lie" is not from you. I just told you that you were promoting it.

Now how do you expect me to concentrate with those things (attachment)staring at me? Suddenly I'm starting to get very sleepy.......

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Put yo glasses on Doug. I said you were "promoting a deliberate lie." Where did I say you were a liar? The "deliberate lie" is not from you. I just told you that you were promoting it.

Now how do you expect me to concentrate with those things (attachment)staring at me? Suddenly I'm starting to get very sleepy.......

LOL, have a great time at Church! I know I will! See y'all later and happy Sabbath! (no falling alseep during the sermon).

[Nic Samojluk]

But seriously; this whole conspiracy theory by Nic and supporters re abortion and the church is just a front for other problems.

[doug yowell]

We are indeed blessed by the fact that the Adventist pioneers in the 1800's had the presence of mind to take a bold stand on the subject of the "value of human life" when it came to slavery.

If only we still had such clarity today. Yet to be fair the Church's official statement is to oppose abortion.

At least they appear to know it is murder.

in Christ,

Bob

What gives you that idea,Bob? The guidelines don't describe abortion,elective or not,as anything but a "delemna", which it is not! An unwanted pregnancy may be a delemna but an abortion is a conscious decision already carried thru regarding the unwanted pregnancy. The strongest language in the guidelines states "we do not condone" but there is no hint that abortion for any reason is condemned or forbidden!Unlike our "position" on tobacco and alcohol, which carries a strong condemnation of it's use or support, and identifies it as "sin", the guidelines clearly leave all abortion decisions and their consequences to the choice of the individual. Given this official contrast one can only conclude that the church considers the destruction of a perfectly healthy unborn human being of less moral consequence than the dusting of a six pack of Miller Lite!If ,in fact,they knew elective abortion was murder, then why did they recommend that whether to murder or not should be a decision best made within the context of a healthy family relationship? Does anyone have difficulty understanding where the SDA founders stood on this issue? Why is it out of line to question why our present "guidelines" are lacking the same clarity?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

We are indeed blessed by the fact that the Adventist pioneers in the 1800's had the presence of mind to take a bold stand on the subject of the "value of human life" when it came to slavery.

If only we still had such clarity today. Yet to be fair the Church's official statement is to oppose abortion.

At least they appear to know it is murder.

in Christ,

Bob

What gives you that idea,Bob? The guidelines don't describe abortion,elective or not,as anything but a "delemna", which it is not! An unwanted pregnancy may be a delemna but an abortion is a conscious decision already carried thru regarding the unwanted pregnancy. The strongest language in the guidelines states "we do not condone" but there is no hint that abortion for any reason is condemned or forbidden!Unlike our "position" on tobacco and alcohol, which carries a strong condemnation of it's use or support, and identifies it as "sin", the guidelines clearly leave all abortion decisions and their consequences to the choice of the individual. Given this official contrast one can only conclude that the church considers the destruction of a perfectly healthy unborn human being of less moral consequence than the dusting of a six pack of Miller Lite!If ,in fact,they knew elective abortion was murder, then why did they recommend that whether to murder or not should be a decision best made within the context of a healthy family relationship? Does anyone have difficulty understanding where the SDA founders stood on this issue? Why is it out of line to question why our present "guidelines" are lacking the same clarity?

YHUYWWHD

You have used your words wisely here Doug.

[Guest]

Quote:

"Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church."

They are not condoned but they are allowed and tolerated. The final result is dead babies.

I do believe we have a bottom line here. Why is it so hard for some to see it?

[fccool]

Quote:

Jesus died to free us from sin. Not to grant us the right to deliberately ignore one of his Ten Rules of behavior.

To let you understand what you are saying, I'll view it from the side of death and comfort... i.e. someone else's death brings me comfort.

Isn't that the ideology behind abortion today? That its acceptable to take a life for the sake of the "greater good"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

"plagiarism" would be hard to prove, definitively, but the guy is right. I took that years ago in nursing that abortions can and do affect the hormones like this.

I could prove it.

And the author was not talking about abortions affecting the hormones. He was talking about the general 19th century consensus of women being so susceptible to histrionics (no matter what their hormonal state). By the way, hormones were not discovered until the 20th century.

And people are still missing my point about the locale of abortions. I find that amusing.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But I'm growing weary of the cat and mouse game of this thread. Choose your sides, put on your robes of self-righteouness or your WWII SS uniforms, whichever side you are on, and war whoop till the cows come home. It's not going to change anything. Straining at gnats regarding the Adventist position on abortion is so petty. People will still be hungry, without jobs, without shelter, and without hope.

[Dr. Shane]

In reading the guidelines..

It is almost like they provide you with the information, and let you make the decision yourself.

I do think a local church body would be justified in disciplining a member that uses abortion for choosing the sex of the child, birth control or convenience. Certainly preachers are free to condemn the use of abortion for those things from the pulpit. That is the church's official position.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Jesus died to free us from sin. Not to grant us the right to deliberately ignore one of his Ten Rules of behavior.

To let you understand what you are saying, I'll view it from the side of death and comfort... i.e. someone else's death brings me comfort.

Isn't that the ideology behind abortion today? That its acceptable to take a life for the sake of the "greater good"?

I think that you've stated this perfectly with the quote marks.

[Dr. Shane]

the editor of the "official"(The Review IS the official publication of the SDA church) church magazine clearly stated that the "guidelines" were not to be understood as an "official position".

That is just double talk. When the church publishes a position on its website so that everyone from every other religion in the world can read it, that is an official position. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

[Dr. Shane]

Conspiracy theory? My theory is that the Adventist Church has departed from the pro-life attitude of the Adventist pioneers. Where is the conspiracy? Are you trying to deny that the church is no longer pro-life, but rather pro-choice?

The Adventist church is pro-life in the area of religion. It condemns abortion when used for birth control, sex selection or convenience. Abortions for those reasons make up over 90% of abortions in the US. That means the Adventist church condemns over 90% of abortions. The other less-than-10% are gray areas left up to the believer.

In the area of politics, our church doesn't take a position (either pro-life or pro-choice).

[doug yowell]

And since we are dealing with those guidelines, allow me to cite from said document and add some comments of mine:

Quote:

"The need for guidelines has become evident, as the Church attempts to follow scripture, and to provide moral guidance while respecting individual conscience."

The need for guidelines is for those who are unwilling to follow the simple and crystal clear biblical injunction against the killing of innocent human beings. What is so difficult to understand about this prohibition?

I disagree with you here, Nic. Previous to the 1992 guidelines the church has issued two previous sets of recommendations,1970&1971. The ambiguity of these guidelines allowed several of our hospitals to provide abortion on demand under the auspices of these "principles". It was the outcry by those in the church,(before you and I were ever involved)on this practice within those hospitals, that led to the "need" for today's guidelines(not policy or position).I believe that the guidelines were created to quiet the demand for the church to take a stand,one way or the other,on the issue.The demand which did not originate from pro-choice,or "moderate" Adventists. I think it no coincidence that only pro-life Adventists are continuing to question it's meaning.