Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

While there are differences of opinion regarding the exact translation of Ex. 21 there are obvious conclusions that are undeniable. 1) Whatever "harm" took place was accidental, not intentional (unlike today's unrestricted,legalized abortion practice)! 2) Even the accidental harm to the child rated a judicial restitution. In other words, God attributed to the child an inherent value that demanded legal compensation) (unlike those who argue that the unborn baby has no value)Can anyone truthfully believe that the PURPOSEFUL killing of an unborn child is viewed by God as less of a crime? Or no crime at all?If God destroyed Israel because they shed innocent blood will He excuse another nation because they were "civil"?

we need to have a specific direction from God regarding intentional abortion and there is no such reference.

"What's this WE,white man?" When John the Baptist sent from prison to ask Jesus whether He was the Messiah,Jesus didn't offer him a specific verse stating "Jesus of Nazareth will be the Christ"! Imagine if John would have sent back and demanded a proof text! Isn't the Bible clear enough on the value of life and our responsibility to protect it?

[doug yowell]

I'd like to see some scripture on abortion too.

No you wouldn't.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Yes, I would.

[doug yowell]

I'd like to see some scripture on abortion too.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Wouldn’t it be more desirable to wait for the baby to be born, and then, if the malformation is not subject to corrective action, to kill the malformed baby after we have verified that the diagnosis was accurate?

Why are you supporting killing handicapped children?

Oh please, Redwood!!We're trying to have a serious conversation here.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

The parents of the baby that was born without a head ended up letting the organs of that baby be used for transplantation to other sick babies. Was that wrong? The brainstem was still functioning so technically the baby was still alive when the organs were harvested. But a number of other babies lived because that one died.

Rudywoofs,

Since you are using an extreme case in order to justify abortion, then I will do likewise: Are you saying that partial abortion is morally justifiable because a healthy and perfectly formed baby could be used to save several babies doomed to die. Is this a good reason for the SDA Church to engage in the ELECTIVE abortion business? Does this justify the fifty million of babies which perished since abortion was legalized? Consider now the following:

You have a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She decides that donating the organs of her unborn baby is a good idea, because the organs can be used to save the life of several babies, and she can thus solve the problem of her unwanted pregnancy.

The life of one baby is sacrificed and several babies are given the gift of life. All it takes is a partial birth abortion. The unborn baby is killed while the baby is in the process of being born, and the head is crushed before it is out of the birth canal, which technically means that the baby was death at arrival.

The organs are removed and transplanted to those in need. Are you comfortable with this moral decision? Is it fair and just to kill one human being without the consent of the donor in order to save the lives of others? Would you have wished to have been such an unwilling donor? Would this have been fair? Do you wish this had been done to one of your children, if you have any?

For the organs to be in optimum condition for transplantation, they must be removed while the donor baby is still alive. Are you happy with the practice of removing organs from a baby while he/she is still breathing? Did you read James Walters’ book “What is a Person”? His solution is to redefine death so that organs can harvested while a baby is still alive and breathing. Do you accept this moral solution? I must be old fashioned, but I consider this to be the moral equivalent to murder.

I will not judge what someone else does regarding abortion.

The baby I was talking about had no head - only the brainstem. The organs of that baby were harvested and used for transplantation, as per the parents request. Organs are harvested on persons who are on life support...not breathing on their own.

One of the problems here that I see is that many people consider a baby as being from the very time of conception. I don't. That's a zygote. When does a glob of cells become a baby? That's the question.

But I don't believe in abortions other than for incest, rape, or when a mother's life is in danger.

Again, I state, I will not judge what a woman decides to do. That is her choice and is between her and God, not her and me. If she decides to have an abortion I would rather it be done in a hospital where proper care can be given, than in a back alley where she might die in the process. If SDA hospitals do this, it is not my job, nor yours, to judge them either.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I'd like to see some scripture on abortion too.

No you wouldn't.

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Steve, I'm not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread. I'm probably one of very few on the board who believes that a woman has the right to choose abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest. I also believe that spontaneous abortions are not caused by the devil, but are the body's own way of ridding itself of problematic fetuses or embryos. (Have you ever seen a full term baby born with no head? I have. It's not a pretty sight.) And for the record, I do not believe that the mating of a sperm and egg equals a baby...it's a zygote.

I believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't do it, but I also refuse to judge a woman who has.

What kind of a zygote is it RW?" Animal, vegetable, or mineral? When will it become something else? Is a six week old zygote still a zygote? A 12week old? A 40 week old? How many abortionists will remove a six week old zygote? You state that you're "not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread",yet you offer your belief that it's a "women's right to choose" to abort without having to be judged. It is not coincidental that you offer no scripture to support YOUR position yet you are quick to defend it and criticize those who do use the Bible to postulate theirs. Why the double standard? If your "right to choose" is Scriptural and not the "opinion of men" then let the Scripture speak.If God doesn't want us to tell others that abortion is a sin then let Him speak.

God is silent on the issue of abortion.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

No you wouldn't.

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Steve' date=' I'm not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread. I'm probably one of very few on the board who believes that a woman has the right to choose abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest. I also believe that spontaneous abortions are not caused by the devil, but are the body's own way of ridding itself of problematic fetuses or embryos. (Have you ever seen a full term baby born with no head? I have. It's not a pretty sight.) And for the record, I do not believe that the mating of a sperm and egg equals a baby...it's a zygote.

I believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't do it, but I also refuse to judge a woman who has.

What kind of a zygote is it RW?" Animal, vegetable, or mineral? When will it become something else? Is a six week old zygote still a zygote? A 12week old? A 40 week old? How many abortionists will remove a six week old zygote? You state that you're "not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread",yet you offer your belief that it's a "women's right to choose" to abort without having to be judged. It is not coincidental that you offer no scripture to support YOUR position yet you are quick to defend it and criticize those who do use the Bible to postulate theirs. Why the double standard? If your "right to choose" is Scriptural and not the "opinion of men" then let the Scripture speak.If God doesn't want us to tell others that abortion is a sin then let Him speak. [/quote']

God is silent on the issue of abortion.

God is also silent on those who inject drugs into their veins, does that make it OK, or is the principle still there?

Man has legislated the use of alcohol, mostly promoting it, as well as gambling, prostitution here in Nevada, and a host of other evils. The principles and laws against abortion are all throughout Scripture,so we all must be persuaded in our own minds.

Common sense, a love for human life, the Bible, The SOP, and the Holy Spirit all reveal to me that abortion is a great evil that God will avenge.

Those who look for hooks to hang preconceived doubts upon will always find them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I refuse to judge a woman who has an abortion. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are also judging me.

[Woody]

Hey Rudywoofs. I would love some company in the place I've been assigned to. :):)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Looks like you've got me as company, Red!!!! LOL

[Steve Billiter]

In the case of a mothers life being endangered is one thing, but most abortions are the result of fornication, a sin. Then it becomes "convenient" for a woman's so called "right to choose" to murder another human life for which she has no right to do thus compounding the sins.

It is simply a case of humans putting their actions and beliefs above that of God when committing adultery, (fornication)then killing the baby and continuing on like its "business as usual."

The male who causes the woman to be pregnant also has responsibility. If he aids and promotes the abortion, then he is also guilty.

what is God's answer to fornication besides not to do it; then after the fact?

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

This obviously provides for the care of a baby born out of wedlock, and solves the fornication problem. God does not say to abort the baby and continue to sin.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Steve Billiter wrote:

Quote:

most abortions are the result of fornication

prove it

[doug yowell]

i just love this, and it is so true!!

Quote:

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

Oh, you mean people like Finney, Moody, Calvin,Luther,James White, E.G.White,Uriah Smith, Kate Lindsay,J.N. Andrews, J.H.Kellog,ect?

and then there are those who study the writings of our church leaders or such, but they still do not search the scriptures.

but back to the topic. this is an interesting thought.

Quote:

In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe.

Knowing the horrible discision that Adam would soon make, why didn't his mother abort him?

Quote:

And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

Now that's some creative exogesis! I wonder how Mrs. White could have overlooked that point? Using that logic,one would have to conclude that the Shechemites (Gen.34)were not persons either.And neither were either Esau or Jacob,John the Baptist,Samson,or David and Bathsheeba's first child (even though he had been born). OK, if the fetus is not a human person (the dictionary definition of person is "human being"),what is IT? i think i might use different terminology but i respect the thought.

[Woody]

Looks like you've got me as company, Red!!!! LOL

Super. Well ... It's not like I am welcoming you here. But misery does like company.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

RW' date=' the problem with your use of this example is that it contradicts your oft stated main position!! Remember, this baby was BORN!! Had it been aborted not one of those other babies would have continued living!!So from a pragmatic view (yours)it would still be MORE "compassionate" to allow even SB babies to come to full term rather than to abort them.

Rudywoofs,

Since you are using an extreme case in order to justify abortion, then I will do likewise: Are you saying that partial abortion is morally justifiable because a healthy and perfectly formed baby could be used to save several babies doomed to die. Is this a good reason for the SDA Church to engage in the ELECTIVE abortion business? Does this justify the fifty million of babies which perished since abortion was legalized? Consider now the following:

You have a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She decides that donating the organs of her unborn baby is a good idea, because the organs can be used to save the life of several babies, and she can thus solve the problem of her unwanted pregnancy.

The life of one baby is sacrificed and several babies are given the gift of life. All it takes is a partial birth abortion. The unborn baby is killed while the baby is in the process of being born, and the head is crushed before it is out of the birth canal, which technically means that the baby was death at arrival.

The organs are removed and transplanted to those in need. Are you comfortable with this moral decision? Is it fair and just to kill one human being without the consent of the donor in order to save the lives of others? Would you have wished to have been such an unwilling donor? Would this have been fair? Do you wish this had been done to one of your children, if you have any?

For the organs to be in optimum condition for transplantation, they must be removed while the donor baby is still alive. Are you happy with the practice of removing organs from a baby while he/she is still breathing? Did you read James Walters’ book “What is a Person”? His solution is to redefine death so that organs can harvested while a baby is still alive and breathing. Do you accept this moral solution? I must be old fashioned, but I consider this to be the moral equivalent to murder.

[/quote']

I will not judge what someone else does regarding abortion.

The baby I was talking about had no head - only the brainstem. The organs of that baby were harvested and used for transplantation, as per the parents request. Organs are harvested on persons who are on life support...not breathing on their own.

One of the problems here that I see is that many people consider a baby as being from the very time of conception. I don't. That's a zygote. When does a glob of cells become a baby? That's the question.

But I don't believe in abortions other than for incest, rape, or when a mother's life is in danger.

Again, I state, I will not judge what a woman decides to do. That is her choice and is between her and God, not her and me. If she decides to have an abortion I would rather it be done in a hospital where proper care can be given, than in a back alley where she might die in the process. If SDA hospitals do this, it is not my job, nor yours, to judge them either.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic did I say I approved of that? No, but all those other deeds you mentioned people made a chose to commit those crimes, because we all have a choice? What the government does I have no control over. All I'm saying is God has given us the choice to do right or wrong has he not? I've said time and time again I'm not for abortion of any kind but I will not tell someone else that they can't choose to abort, that is between them and there Savior period. Just like murdering another idividual, stealing, lying, etc.

pk

Pkrause,

My response was prompted by the fact that you said: “Good post rudywoofs.” Based on that I concluded that you did agree with most of what sudywoofs’ had stated. My position is as follows:

1. I believe that our Adventist Church should get out of the abortion business. The fact that it is legal, does not mean that is moral. Five of our hospitals were reported to be offering ELECTIVE abortions. This is clear murder in my book.

2. In addition, it is our privilege and duty to vote for candidates likely to use their influence to protect the lives of all human beings, including the unborn.

My comments should be read within this context. If I did not make myself clear, it is my fault, not yours.

[Nic Samojluk]

This is but a tiny portion of the whole article in this link http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html. Due to its length it would not look very pretty in here so its beter to visit the site at a click.

"It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument."

Raphael,

You might be correct or you might wrong. There is no way to determine which translation is the correct one. I prefer the “premature birth” option because it agrees with the rest of the Bible which forbids the shedding of innocent blood.

If I were to discover that my choice of translation is wrong, I would still believe that abortion is wrong. The reason is very simple: There is no biblical condemnation for slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Today we do condemn all three, regardless of the silence about them in the Bible. I would not take a second wife, nor would I buy a slave today even if it were legal to do it.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Nic, from what school did you earn your PhD, and in which journal was your dissertation published?

[teresaq]

I refuse to judge a woman who has an abortion. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are also judging me.

i agree with all three points.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

wow!! amazing!!

no, folks go back and read it again. if it is james white, he is talking about a man forcing his wife to have sex when she doesnt wish it.

apart from that this would be saying that the pioneers were not really led by the HS as they claimed but by the mores of their time.

This is incredible! Are you equating forced sex with murder?

my response was regarding whether james white(?) was referring to a man forcing his wife to have sex or to have an abortion.

your response is related to an imaginary post and is manipulative bordering on the coercive.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

are you saying that if there is going to be abortion, then we should allow these atrocities? if not then why bring it up? to manipulate?

I brought this up in order that you might see the inconsistency in your thinking!

in your opinion. i could also make the same charges against you and we can go back and forth. but childish is still childish. and manipulative will always be manipulative regardless of the reasoning we use to justify it.

the rest of your post is just more of the same.

[teresaq]

Nic, from what school did you earn your PhD, and in which journal was your dissertation published?

possibly more important is it a biased dissertation, meaning did it leave out much that would give a different picture to the whole subject?

[Outta Here]

You can read the dissertation here in its entirety: http://sdaforum.ipower.com/page13.html

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

No..that was not my question. I would like to know from what school did Nic earn his PhD, and in which journal it was published. It's a credibility issue.