SivartM Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I can't wait to adopt kids. And I'm pro-choice. I mean no offense to anyone, but I don't see why people obsess about having biological children when there are so many already-existing children who need loving homes. I'd consider it a privilege to adopt someday. Quote "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted March 31, 2012 Administrators Share Posted March 31, 2012 It is indeed a privilege! And it is a fulfilling a direct and oft-repeated Scriptural instruction to care for the widows and orphans... Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Woody wrote: “You theory is full of holes.” Where are the holes? You haven’t shown me a single one! “No one is in debate that any of the things you listed are wrong and not to be done.” Agreed! Then why do you make a difference between rape, burglary, sexual abuse of children, acts of terrorism, and so on and abortion. If all of those hurtful acts are wrong, we should show some consistency and provide legal consequences for all of them, instead of making an exception for the murder of innocents! Society provides for a day in court for the worst offenders and a long list of appeals for them before they are executed; yet in the case of unborn children, who have committed no crime, there is no right to a trial and the execution is swift a the whim of the pregnant woman, even when the mental condition of the woman is unstable! This week we have been considering the story of the Good Samarian, and Jesus did state that our neighbor is the one close to us who is in need. Who is the one closest to the unborn baby? Isn’t its mother? When the pregnant woman orders the child killed, isn’t she refusing to treat its own child as her neighbor? Isn’t this a violation of what Jesus told us e need to do? “Abortion while I feel is wrong - is in debate. When more people feel it is okay than those who feel it is wrong - I don't feel comfortable having the minority imposing it's will on the majority.” Do you take your cue from the majority or from the Bible? The majority felt that what Hitler was doing was right, and even our Adventist brethren were deceived and went along with Hitler’s mesmerism. If the majority felt tomorrow that rape should be acceptable, would you go along with this? Don’t you expect from Christians to have some moral backbone? Where would we be if the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples, Paul, Luther, Churchill, and Lincoln had your soft approach to moral duty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Woody wrote: “Yes Naomi - It would be like SDAs proposing legislation to impose the Sabbath on all citizens of our country. I think we as SDAs are opposed to that kinda stuff.” You are not comparing oranges with oranges! The Sabbath has to do with our relationship with Almighty God, while abortion has to do with our relationship with our neighbors. Jesus did place a wall of separation between our duty to God and our obligation to our neighbor. The state is responsible for our horizontal relationship with our fellow human beings. It would be wrong for the state to tell us how to worship God. Nevertheless, when the state fails to protect a certain group of human beings, this represents a serious dereliction of duty. I hope you see the difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: RLH I guess you would have gone right along with crucifying Jesus then. Was not much of his purpose here on earth to be crucified? No! The Angel Gabriel said that Jesus was destined to occupy the throne of David. This is clearly stated in Luke chapter 1. This is why, when Jesus realized that his people were determined to reject him as their promised Messiah, he wept over Jerusalem and exclaimed: “If you had known what pertains to your peace.” The Jews were not destined to crucify Jesus! They freely chose to do this. If I am wrong, then why did God send his angel to Pilate’s wife warning him not to condemn an innocent man? And why did the Lord empower Jesus to perform so many incredible miracles—including the resurrection of Lazarus? Wasn’t all this designed to convince them to accept him as their King? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Very simply - it means that Jesus gives us choice. He does not force anyone. He doesn't force anyone? Jesus has given humanity a set of laws to guide their behavior and has specifically included a guaranteed consequence (suffering and eternal death) for the violation of those laws. How is that different from a human law requiring that unborn children not be killed for no reason at all? How does a law against an evil practice "force" anyone to do anything? If you continue to cite the principle of freedom as being understood by the same definition as it is used to kill the unborn then you are actually teaching that there will be no Divine judgment of sin to come, only the eternal right to choose.Back to the question, how does imposing penalties for evil behavior negate the right to choose to practice evil behavior anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 SivartM wrote: “I don't like abortion, but really, aren't they better off not having to live in a place where they aren't wanted or can't be supported?” Are pregnant women clairvoyant? There is always the possibility that the woman who feels that she got pregnant at the wrong time in her life, will decide to keep her baby after the baby is born. This had happened on numerous occasions. Besides, a long list of unwanted babies were given up for adoption and became outstanding members of the human race, starting with Beethoven and many more. My question to you: Do you think that it is wise to let women to play God? Can they correctly determine which baby will be unloved and mistreated? “If anti-choice groups succeed in making abortion illegal, I think their registries should be automatically turned into adoption waiting lists to accommodate all the new children.” I have relatives who have gone to the other side of the world in search of adoptable children because of the difficulty of finding them in the U.S. And they spent a fortune for each one of them. Does this make sense? We kill them here and infertile couples have to go far away to secure one or two. “"Right to life" sounds nice until you consider that many aren't going to have especially good lives, and so you basically want to force people to suffer.” Can you predict which ones will suffer? If not, then why risking killing the wrong ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Was not much of his purpose here on earth to be crucified? No. He came to die for the sins of the world, but not to be crucified. They didn't have to crucify him. Had they properly understood the prophecies, and accepted him, there is no way they would have crucified him. He could have died at the Temple, instead of being tortured and hung on a cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: EmptyCross Was not much of his purpose here on earth to be crucified? No. He came to die for the sins of the world, but not to be crucified. They didn't have to crucify him. Had they properly understood the prophecies, and accepted him, there is no way they would have crucified him. He could have died at the Temple, instead of being tortured and hung on a cross. But he is God, he knew how it was going to turn out did he not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 But he is God, he knew how it was going to turn out did he not? Correct. And He did it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So why is the crucifixion considered such a bad thing? Do you think that it would have had such a dramatic effect on people if he had grown old and died in the temple? The whole scenerio of the way he died, his rise again etc is what causes many people to take notice. Personally I think it was the plan all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Does the mother's intention matter? If she's having an abortion because she's selfish (which seems to be a common stereotype) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So why is the crucifixion considered such a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 But he is God, he knew how it was going to turn out did he not? Correction: He was the Son of God and did not know everything as God the Father does. ("But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no,...neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32) He learned how it was going to turn out from His study of the Scriptures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell Doesn't the church already spend lots of time and effort in attempting to minister to these groups already (and for decades)? Can you name one church sponsored ministry for the unborn or the newborn's mother who has just chosen to not abort her baby?....................I didn't think so. So why not start one? We tried that 20 years ago and got zero support from the organization. Many churches in the area were afraid to allow us to advertise our services for fear of our "abortion is not the answer" accompanying thread.We were called "Loving Options" maybe if we had called ourselves "Choices" we might have been more acceptable. We provided adoption referrals, post-abortion counseling for both women and men, physical resources for girls who had chosen to keep their babies, training for motherhood,ect... In other words we, like most other CPC's, provided every service (and more) that pro-choicers assert that we won't/don't provide.Many of our clients were SDA kids.CPC's take advertising to exist, money to run and humans to staff. When SDA prolifers want to successfully begin a ministry like this they first have to overcome a church fostered antagonism that portrays them as dangerous,uncaring, anti-choice fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 That's true Gordon, good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So why is the crucifixion considered such a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 "...they first have to overcome a church fostered antagonism that portrays them as dangerous,uncaring, anti-choice fanatics." Yes, but this is the role of every Christian, overcoming fear of man. Effective ministry does not require Church approval or support. Christ received neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://www.christianfamilyadoptions.org/about-christian-family-adoptions.php Ooppps I stand corrected! I guess Doug will have to start a second ministry. Excellent post Tom. I guess there still are those that just don't waste there time condemning but actually doing something. Before you stand in condemnation of me,pk,you might want to notice my later post or the fact that I said that the church doesn't provide ministries for the woman in an unwanted pregnancy. I noted that we have ministries for almost every other segment of social need. Every church (well, not every, but you know what I mean) has a feeding the homeless outreach,a Dorcas,youth ministry, children's ministry, marriage counseling,ect...ect... but for the woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy?? Our adoption service (God bless them!!) deals with children already born and abandoned by whatever circumstances. They have no direct connection with the crisis pregnancy before delivery nor are they engaged in attempting to convince the woman that they could find a wonderful couple to adopt her baby if she chooses not to first abort it.It does, however, offer nothing to the woman who aborts her baby and later regrets it.And it's medical institutions are allowed to help her abort her unborn child if she so "chooses". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 This is a bit of a confusing post Richard. In the first part you say that it would have been better for him to die in the Temple, in the second part you sound like you are agreeing with what I said. That the way he died was important to his mission. Yeah I know. Actually it was important to the mission for that one reason. The rest was just speculation on what could have been. You said crucifixion was no big deal, but I'm saying who would want to go that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. T. Cross Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I think we have totally railroaded this thread, I am gonna start a new one for it down in Theological RLH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I can't wait to adopt kids. And I'm pro-choice. I mean no offense to anyone, but I don't see why people obsess about having biological children when there are so many already-existing children who need loving homes. I'd consider it a privilege to adopt someday.I agree with your sentiments, as I suspect would most pro-lifers but a pro-life saying is, "Adoption not abortion" and you seem to be implying that it should be changed to "adoption or abortion". Your original charge seemed to suggest that "anti-choicers" were unwilling to (care for)adopt those whom they wished to save. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell "...they first have to overcome a church fostered antagonism that portrays them as dangerous,uncaring, anti-choice fanatics." Yes, but this is the role of every Christian, overcoming fear of man. Effective ministry does not require Church approval or support. Christ received neither. Yet, that was not His desire for either the official organization or His followers.His church, out of jealousy, ended up killing Him instead of being the facillitator(?) of His mission, something we're hoping to avoid repeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobRyan Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 After years of blogging with Adventists on this forum about abortion, I have discovered that no matter what argument I use in defense of the unborn’s right to life, those who oppose my views end with the following entrenched position: “Abortion is wrong, but women should have the right to choose!” So let me see if we can apply the same policy to other areas of our moral behavior: A. Rape is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! B. Sexual abuse of children is wrong but men should have the right to choose! C. Burglary is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! D. Terrorism is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! E. Slavery is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! F. Homicide is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! G. Genocide is wrong, but men should have the right to choose! Here is my question: If you agree that all the above described moral actions which cause harm to other human beings are wrong and must we punished, why do we insist that in the case of abortion, women should have the right to kill their own children with impunity? Who is "we"??? Most of the SDAs I know personally are in full agreement with your view. What is not to like?? in Christ, Bob Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Naomi Posted March 31, 2012 Administrators Share Posted March 31, 2012 Originally Posted By: Naomi I will be much more excited about calling out the church on the abortion issue when I see our church and society in general use as much emotion and resources to save at least some of these hungry, homeless, suffering babies, children and teenagers. http://www.christianfamilyadoptions.org/about-christian-family-adoptions.php First, I do apologize to Nic Samojluk for taking his thread off topic. My only intent was to suggest that while there is so much emotion and vast energy & resources to save the unborn-ed it would be exciting to see the same amount of emotional resources and concern for those which have been born. Secondly, Even though this is regressing from where the thread has progressed, I do feel that I should clarify the above statement. I never intended to suggest that our church is not doing good works to help the "forgotten" children of the world. We have many dedicated missions whose purpose is to save the children. To all involved, words can never express my humble appreciation for their endless efforts. In developing and in developed countries there are just so many, many suffering children. And, more seem to arrive each day ... How to help so many? How to save those who are so horribly abused by parents and family members? It is mind boggling! Yes, many have adopted and this is awesome. We adopted my granddaughter. I say we because it is a family event. She has been such a beautiful blessing. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.