Should Adventists Agree With Catholics On Abortion?

[Overaged]

The general topic of abortions has always interested me, both from the medical/nursing and the personal standpoint.

In this topic; I would be interested to examine with other interested parties, the official Catholic position on abortions. What parts are good? What parts are not right? How does the Adventist position compare with the Catholic position? With these three questions in mind; I will enclose below the official Catholic position.

Catholic Church Catechism On Abortion

Quote:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.

The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78

The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.

Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....

It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Adventist Guidelines On Abortion

Adventist Position On Birth Control

Some helpful links to reflect alternatives to abortion that Adventists can look into are also enclosed below. The official guidelines advise to consider these kinds of alternatives.

How Are Abortions Performed. Get The Facts

When Does Life Begin

Abortion Changes You

Abortion Alternatives

Adventist Adoptions

Rachels Vineyard

Impact Of Abortions On Men: Start The Healing Process

Men Dealing With Abortion

[John317]

My answer to your question, in brief, is no.

Individual SDAs are free, of course, to believe anything they like on the subject, but if you are asking if our church should come to some kind of agreement with Catholics or work with them in regard to it, then the answer has to be in the negative. We don't share their agenda, which is to use the abortion issue to bring Catholics and protestants closer together. They also want to make laws prohibiting it. In other words, their agenda is to use the state to enforce church policy. You've no doubt noticed that they are trying to do the same thing about Sunday. As a church, we can't join them in these goals because our views on these matters are quite different from those of the Roman Catholic Church.

I do personally oppose abortion but I believe that others have a right to decide for themselves. I believe it's wrong to abort babies but that's a view based on my religious faith and not something that the state should decide for everyone.

[phkrause]

My answer to your question, in brief, is no.

Individual SDAs are free, of course, to believe anything they like on the subject, but if you are asking if our church should come to some kind of agreement with Catholics or work with them in regard to it, then the answer has to be in the negative. We don't share their agenda, which is to use the abortion issue to bring Catholics and protestants closer together. They also want to make laws prohibiting it. In other words, their agenda is to use the state to enforce church policy. You've no doubt noticed that they are trying to do the same thing about Sunday. As a church, we can't join them in these goals because our views on these matters are quite different from those of the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting thoughts John and I agree with you.

pk

[teresaq]

Quote:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

does that include the serial killer sentenced to death. how about the "heretic" sentenced to death? :)

[John317]

Here's something else that's interesting on this subject:

In 1987, an attorney and Harvard law professor, Lawrence Lader, wrote, "It must be a signifiant part of the Vatican strategy that abortion becomes the dominant issue in the United States, while its legalization has been virtually ignored in such Catholic countries as Poland and Italy, which have the highest abortion rate in Western Europe.

"Cardinal O'Connor and Cardinal Law have turned abortion into the 'cutting edge' of the right-wing assault on separation of church and state. It is the most easily dramatized weapon in their arsenal...

"Abortion has thus become the prime instrument of the assault on First Amendment separation... Abortion represents the core of the Catholic-Fundamentalist-White House alliance (Catholic-Protestant-US Government) It represents the best possibility of a break-through for the conservative agenda. If abortion rights can be destroyed, all other objectives can be won more easily." Lawrence Lader, attorney, Power, Politics, and the Church, pp. 58, 70, 71 (NY Macmillan, 1987).

I think the statement is still true 23 years later, in 2010.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Here's something else that's interesting on this subject:

In 1987, an attorney and Harvard law professor, Lawrence Lader, wrote, "It must be a signifiant part of the Vatican strategy that abortion becomes the dominant issue in the United States, while its legalization has been virtually ignored in such Catholic countries as Poland and Italy, which have the highest abortion rate in Western Europe.

"Cardinal O'Connor and Cardinal Law have turned abortion into the 'cutting edge' of the right-wing assault on separation of church and state. It is the most easily dramatized weapon in their arsenal...

"Abortion has thus become the prime instrument of the assault on First Amendment separation... Abortion represents the core of the Catholic-Fundamentalist-White House alliance (Catholic-Protestant-US Government) It represents the best possibility of a break-through for the conservative agenda. If abortion rights can be destroyed, all other objectives can be won more easily." Lawrence Lader, attorney, Power, Politics, and the Church, pp. 58, 70, 71 (NY Macmillan, 1987).

I think the statement is still true 23 years later, in 2010.

very interesting, John317.... and it reminded me of the fact that the majority of our Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.

[teresaq]

Quote:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Other evidence presented by the plaintiffs Wednesday provided new details confirming reports from the 2008 campaign that Catholic and Mormon church leaders were heavily involved in promoting Proposition 8, directing money, volunteers and advisers to the effort.

both issues have been used for the last few decades to unite americans into crossing the line and abolishing the wall between church and state.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: John317

"Abortion has thus become the prime instrument of the assault on First Amendment separation... Abortion represents the core of the Catholic-Fundamentalist-White House alliance (Catholic-Protestant-US Government) It represents the best possibility of a break-through for the conservative agenda. If abortion rights can be destroyed, all other objectives can be won more easily." Lawrence Lader, attorney, Power, Politics, and the Church, pp. 58, 70, 71 (NY Macmillan, 1987).

I think the statement is still true 23 years later, in 2010.

very interesting, John317.... and it reminded me of the fact that the majority of our Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.

For this reason, we need to avoid the politicization of abortion. But there are 1 billion Catholics to whom we are commissioned to deliver the three angels' messages, the bulk of whom will not take us seriously once they learn that our church can't muster up the guts to say that killing babies is wrong.

Our church also has the black eye of having had members in good standing who have benefited handsomely from the baby-killing trade.

As a church we have no moral collateral with anyone who is convinced of the immorality of abortion. None. This is a fact we must face up to.

Now, we can say they are all a bunch of right-wing wackos, but we are commissioned to deliver a message to them - a LOT of them, so, what are we doing about it?

Nothing. We're trying to ignore the issue.

It won't go away.

[SivartM]

On a recent Focus on the Family broadcast (which you can listen to on their website) they interviewed a woman who, when she was 14, almost had to have a late-term abortion, but she and her (abusive) mother agreed that they should not kill the baby, and she ended up in a Catholic hospital to give birth. Because of her young age she was already having health problems and the doctors warned her that she might not survive the delivery, and offered to transfer her to another hospital that would give her the higher priority, but that if she stayed there they would save the baby before saving her.

[Overaged]

The SDA church does not condone 'killing babies'! Never has! Never will! Of course, it most likely does not consider a couple of dividing cells a baby.

Inflamatory statements never bring about rational discussion, they are designed to do the opposite.

Very true. Such statements rarely reflect the truth.

[Overaged]

My answer to your question, in brief, is no.

Individual SDAs are free, of course, to believe anything they like on the subject, but if you are asking if our church should come to some kind of agreement with Catholics or work with them in regard to it, then the answer has to be in the negative. We don't share their agenda, which is to use the abortion issue to bring Catholics and protestants closer together. They also want to make laws prohibiting it. In other words, their agenda is to use the state to enforce church policy. You've no doubt noticed that they are trying to do the same thing about Sunday. As a church, we can't join them in these goals because our views on these matters are quite different from those of the Roman Catholic Church.

I do personally oppose abortion but I believe that others have a right to decide for themselves. I believe it's wrong to abort babies but that's a view based on my religious faith and not something that the state should decide for everyone.

[karl]

The SDA church does not condone 'killing babies'! Never has! Never will! Of course, it most likely does not consider a couple of dividing cells a baby.

Would those dividing cells be considered living cells? And after the abortionist is through with his work do they remain living?

If they start out living and as the result of a deliberate act they are rendered dead, that means that they were killed.

Yes?

[Woody]

Quote:

OK, fair enough. Please allow me to be a bit of an agitator. Why is it wrong to legislate abortion; but not wrong to legislate stealing? (the eighth commandment)

I've answered this many times. But, will attempt to do so again.

Stealing is legislated because everyone is in agreement that it is wrong. Why is the fourth commandment not legislated? Because most are not in agreement that it is right.

Why is abortion not legislated? Because most people are not in agreement that it is wrong.

Why is it that so many people want to legislate God's laws? Where would this take us if we got on this band wagon?

I know I have given more questions. But, I hope you will consider them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Would those dividing cells be considered living cells? And after the abortionist is through with his work do they remain living?

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted By: Karl

f they start out living and as the result of a deliberate act they are rendered dead, that means that they were killed. Yes?

yes... and your point is? What does that have to do with legislation of abortion?

Ecclesiastes 3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal...

[Overaged]

Quote:

OK, fair enough. Please allow me to be a bit of an agitator. Why is it wrong to legislate abortion; but not wrong to legislate stealing? (the eighth commandment)

I've answered this many times. But, will attempt to do so again.

Stealing is legislated because everyone is in agreement that it is wrong. Why is the fourth commandment not legislated? Because most are not in agreement that it is right.

Why is abortion not legislated? Because most people are not in agreement that it is wrong.

Why is it that so many people want to legislate God's laws? Where would this take us if we got on this band wagon?

I know I have given more questions. But, I hope you will consider them.

Im sorry my friend; I did not realize that you had answered this before. LOL, I have enough trouble keeping up with myself - let alone the many posts on this or other threads here. I definitely agree that God's laws should not be legislated. So are we as Adventists saying that abortions should not come under the commandment to not kill? Is that why we don't want it legislated, or are we just paranoid about Catholic abortion agendas?

My purpose in this thread is to examine the Catholic position point by point and see whats right, whats wrong with it. And then compare that to our's. I do not want to get into all the same arguments as what are already in the other, similar thread on abortion.

So far, I hear some people saying that they don't want Catholics to be able to legislate abortions. Would this threaten the Adventist position on abortions?

What other concerns should we have about the Catholic position on this topic? What have they got right in their position? Is there something we could learn from them on this?

Please note too that I am not advocating any particular position here; only seeking to examine the Catholic one. The Catholics do have many very effective ministries to provide the public with alternatives to abortion; and our Conference guidelines do advise that people seek out these kinds of alternatives. I am hoping we can all stop quibbling in this thread and examine in detail what this large denomination teaches, and just what we as Adventists should be concluding about their position...and please do it nicely, I know many Catholics involved in abortion alternatives. They don't deserve half the stuff we typically say about them. (IMHO)

[Woody]

Quote:

So are we as Adventists saying that abortions should not come under the commandment to not kill?

Again. IT has nothing to do with what WE say.

The point being that we do not promote any legislation whether it be to keep the Sabbath or to not kill unborn babies ... when there is not a concensus among the people.

Obviously the nation is torn over this issue and thus laws that would outlaw abortions would cause major disturbances. Why should the majority be controlled by a minority?

[teresaq]

But there are 1 billion Catholics to whom we are commissioned to deliver the three angels' messages, the bulk of whom will not take us seriously once they learn that our church can't muster up the guts to say that killing babies is wrong.

and they were listening to us the 100+ years before?

[Overaged]

Quote:

So are we as Adventists saying that abortions should not come under the commandment to not kill?

Again. IT has nothing to do with what WE say.

The point being that we do not promote any legislation whether it be to keep the Sabbath or to not kill unborn babies ... when there is not a concensus among the people.

Obviously the nation is torn over this issue and thus laws that would outlaw abortions would cause major disturbances. Why should the majority be controlled by a minority?

You make some interesting points. I guess in my mind I am confused about this part of "what we say."

It sounds like some here are saying that there must be "a consensus among the people" before we would allow or promote legislation on moral matters? Should our Church be run by public consensus? To me, we should be able to say more clearly why we have our current position, and why the Catholic position on abortion is so wrong?

For eg. the official Catholic position states:

"2271 (CCC) Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of EVERY procured abortion. This teaching has not changed, and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (meaning thou shalt not kill) Now, it says in the next paragraph that anyone who commits this crime against human life will be excommunicated from the Church.

Can we examine this aspect of what I have quoted from the Catholic position, and see what is wrong with it? What is right with it? Should Adventists adopt a similar policy, where the Church takes a stronger stand? If so, how strong? Is there a point where our "redemptive approach" would just be a cover for sin? Is there an official Adventist position on that?

(no. I am not a Jesuit spy. I am just trying to examine all the cards on the table here)

[Woody]

Again. You mix up what is being talked about.

We are discussing proposed legislation for this nation. What our church believes or doesn't believe is not the issue. We as a church should not be promoting rules and laws for this nation whether it be forced Sabbath or killing unborn babies ... just because that is what our church believes. So, yes ... what laws we as a church promotes ... is dependent upon concensus in the general population. If there is not concensus then our church should not be promoting it.

Are you also in favor of forced Sabbath keeping? If so why? And if not? Why not?

[Overaged]

Again. You mix up what is being talked about.

We are discussing proposed legislation for this nation. What our church believes or doesn't believe is not the issue. We as a church should not be promoting rules and laws for this nation whether it be forced Sabbath or killing unborn babies ... just because that is what our church believes. So, yes ... what laws we as a church promotes ... is dependent upon concensus in the general population. If there is not concensus then our church should not be promoting it.

Are you also in favor of forced Sabbath keeping? If so why? And if not? Why not?

I am only going to discuss abortion here. So is it an official Church position that the abortion legislation question is really a matter of Church/State conflict? Is this the only reason we should be opposed to the catholic position? I am asking everyone - not just you Redwood.

[Woody]

You still haven't answered my questions. Why are we not promoting national legislation to force Sabbath observance?

Since this is to difficult for overaged. I will ask it of ANYone on his side.

[teresaq]

cause we dont have enough numbers to make it work, quite honestly. otherwise many of us would be agitating for it in a heartbeat, "thinking we do God a service".

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Karl

Would those dividing cells be considered living cells? And after the abortionist is through with his work do they remain living?

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted By: Karl

f they start out living and as the result of a deliberate act they are rendered dead, that means that they were killed. Yes?

yes... and your point is? What does that have to do with legislation of abortion?

Ecclesiastes 3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal...

Just taking some baby steps through this concept of terminating versus sustaining life.

I don't want anyone to skate on the delusion that it is not LIFE that is being terminated in the process of abortion. These are not dead cells. These are cells with all the DNA and replicating ability to become a walking, talking doll who would be loved and cherished, if given the chance, by 901,000 American families waiting for adoption, according to the most recent count by the CDC.

Let them live!

While I am opposed to politicization of abortion (I believe the government should be LESS involved in our lives, not more,) I am in favor of our church being able to come to the conclusion that it is morally wrong to deliberately terminate a baby's life. Our church has weighed in on the subject of suicide. What prevents us from weighing in on infanticide? Terminated infants would have exponentially more future than would the terminally ill.

And PLEASE do not use Ecclesiastes or any other Bible text as an excuse for killing INNOCENT life. These babies have done nothing amiss. If suffering and death is in order, it is we who should suffer - not them.

[Overaged]

I wish we could examine the questions I have on the Catholic position closer. I was hoping to avoid other issues related to abortion which are taking place on another thread...

[karl]

I wish we could examine the questions I have on the Catholic position closer. I was hoping to avoid other issues related to abortion which are taking place on another thread...

My answer is "NO" we should not join up with the Catholic church on this issue. We should take our own stand on behalf of intrauterine babies..