Adventist Today on Abortion as a religious freedom

[RonCorson]

Adventist Today on Abortion as a religious freedom

 

 Now that Adventist Today has blocked me from seeing their comments section on Facebook, I have decided to start writing more articles on the garbage that this organization posts on their website. It is now almost totally political progressivism and precious little Christianity let alone Adventism.

 The recent article Should Women Have Religious Freedom? By John B. Hoehn, MD is a prime example.

It begins with a seriously unintelligent premise that cells live and die. It has nothing to do with anything other than pretending the guy is talking science. That plant and animal cells grow and divide and die throughout the life of the organism is general knowledge and has nothing to do with his subject.

So beginning  where he gets to the meat of his argument Hoehn writes:

Religious Freedom?

If a woman does not agree with the religious doctrine forbidding “any abortion for any reason at any time,” where is her religious freedom? Why should a woman who lives in Washington State have the right to decide which religious teachings on abortion she will accept, but not if she lives in a state such as Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma, where this dogma is enforced by state laws making her and her doctors criminals?

First of all Religious Freedom has a definition.  Religious Freedom is a synonym for Freedom of Religion:

Legal Definition of freedom of religion

: the right especially as guaranteed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to practice one's religion or exercise one's beliefs without intervention by the government and to be free of the exercise of authority by a church through the government

— see also FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

NOTE: The freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment can be overcome by a showing by the government of a compelling state interest. On this basis, practices used in some religions, such as bigamy, are prohibited despite the First Amendment guarantee.

To be a free exercise of religion tenant it must be a core belief in your religion. I am pretty sure there is no religion that has a core belief in Abortion as a part of their religion. Even the church of Satan does not list Abortion as a part of their religion though they do say this:

Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.” https://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs/

It is also noteworthy that there are in fact no laws in any states that put forth the law as “any abortion for any reason at any time,” So if someone disagrees with something that no one is saying is that really in any way restricting their religious freedom?

The American people are not where the left is. Americans do not support any abortion for any reason at any time during any pregnancy.

A January 2015 poll found that only 9% of Americans want abortion available to a woman at any time during a pregnancy, and only another 8% want it any time during the first six months. Over 80% of Americans support some kind of restrictions on abortion (25). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-stake-abortion-debate-connie-marshner

The idea that abortion laws are simply religious doctrines is not at all true and as you can see from Hoehn’s article he does not even try to support his gratuitous assertion.

He writes:

The evangelical churches, then, have formed “an image-to-the-beast” when they use state governments to make laws enforcing their religious teaching that all abortion at any time (one day, one gram, three months) is not merely a sorrow or tragedy, but a murder.

As we see it is far from just evangelical churches that believe in restrictions on abortions. That is again simply an assertion from Hoehn without any backing.

He continues:

But why must dissenters be punished by civil penalties by the state? Why are Seventh-day Adventists not all voting to demand freedom from religious persecution in any state by any civil government? Can we be so fixated on some future “Sunday-law” that we are ignoring the ramification of allowing any state government to punish women and their doctors for a religious opinion?

This is where a little knowledge would help Hoehn. States get their power to make laws through the electoral process where they elect representatives to organize the state with laws and regulations.  It is not necessary for you to agree with all laws and regulations. For example, one may feel that they should not pay taxes for whatever reason. You can claim that you are not paying taxes because you disagree with how the money is spent but by our laws and constitutions (Federal and State) you still have to observe those laws. Just saying you have religious freedom does not change the situation. Nor does it mean that there is an unholy alliance. Very clearly those state laws are not religious persecution because there is no religion that says we must practice abortions, no women saying I must have an abortion as part of my religion, and no doctors saying I must perform abortions to fulfill my religious beliefs

There were a few good comments on the Facebook thread aside from the lick spittle’s with their “this is such a great article”. In his reply to one comment Hoehn writes:

[R. B.] A moral issue proper for the state would be, thou shalt not murder. But is birth control by any method, or stopping gestation from proceeding at early non-viable stages "murder" is not a moral issue, it is a religious question.

Of course, it is a moral question and it certainly has enough science to support that it is human life; That Hoehn even asserts abortion as “birth control” is a horrible statement. To make it seem like the state has no say in birth control by any method is absurd. Should the state allow gut punch clinics for birth control, should a man be able to take a drugged pregnant woman to the birth control center of any method. “Get ‘em in the door and we will stop that gestation pronto” clinics! It is rather humorous that Hoehn quotes the Bible as the proper moral issue being thou shalt not murder but the question of murder of a fetus is a religious question.

His comment continues with:

Moral people who agree the state should stop murder are disagreeing that abortion at any stage before viability is murder. If I were to come to your home, attack you with a knife cutting off your arm, I would be guilty of assault and the state must deal with me. But if you come to my hospital and to improve or prolong your life, I remove your arm with a cancer, that is not assault, that is a medically necessary destruction, not a crime. The question of is preventing a life (abortion) murder is a religious opinion, not a loss of morality.

Really a rather silly statement as coming to a hospital means that the hospital and the doctors and nurses and lab techs are all operating on hundreds if not thousands of laws and state regulations both State and Federal. Again look at the previously mentioned polls the disagreement about it being murder is very small when the actual viability of the baby is considered. One also has to wonder why he continues to make statements like: “that abortion at any stage before viability” when he seems to be very accepting of even partial birth third-trimester abortions.

All in all, this is a completely fallacious article that makes assertions that are pretty ridiculous, you can tell easily how absurd the arguments are by the fact that the assertions are simply made and not supported with anything. Then the final nail in this coffin is that Hoehn wants in his concluding paragraph:

        ...I hope that pastor will now, before November 6 elections, remind his congregation of their duty before God to vote against any forms of enforcement of a          religious opinion by civil governments in any state.

This is all about getting the political progressive agenda to take over the United States, all this is because everything the leftist wants is good and everything else is bad. Abortion is good and moral, pro-life is bad (not murdering babies) and religious bigotry. The only real religion is political progressive leftism, conservatism and traditional religious ideas are bad because they force; they have moral insights that can impact the decisions of a representative government's legislation.  I have not even gone into the hypocrisy of quoting Ellen White when he most certainly does not believe in her prophecies anyway and certainly not the way they are laid out in the Great Controversy book. You don’t need to believe in Ellen White's prophecies I sure don’t but to use her to make a case even though you don’t believe in her is just pure hypocrisy. But it does appear hypocrisy is fine, telling untruth is fine as long as it works toward the goals of leftism which is the new religion of Adventist Today.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Judaism is divided on the issue of abortion.  Some groups allow it, while others either do not or limit it.  In addition, some groups believe it is a religious right.  The following are a few statements from a longer article which must be read in order to obtain a better picture as to where Jewish thought on abortion lies.

Jewish tradition itself not only permits but sometimes requires the ending of pregnancy when the pregnant individual’s life and wellbeing are in jeopardy. We understand access to abortion services to be an issue of religious freedom as well as individual liberty.

and

In May, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association and Reconstructing Judaism released a joint statement that said:

"The Reconstructionist movement has long held that the choice to end a pregnancy must remain in the hands of pregnant individuals in consultation with their doctors, loved ones and religious advisers. Jewish tradition itself not only permits but sometimes requires the ending of pregnancy when the pregnant individual’s life and wellbeing are in jeopardy. We understand access to abortion services to be an issue of religious freedom as well as individual liberty."

and

The Texas law makes one liable to minimum fines of $10,000 to counsel or encourage a woman to have an abortion. So if, for example, a pregnant person were to go to their rabbi and receive advice that Jewish law permits or requires an abortion, the rabbi might be sued under Texas law.

In essence, this means that if you refer to a passage from the Torah, the Talmud or a book summarizing Jewish law and share what you know with a pregnant person, you could be prosecuted for sharing the contents of your tradition's sacred texts supporting abortion.

https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/social-justice/2022/june/abortion-judaism-joffe.html

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The central issue of this thread is abortion and that includes whether or not abortion is a religious right.  You are free to discuss those issues.

It is not appropriate to name a person whom you believe supports a religious right to abortion and to state that person is a lesbian.  Your claim may be true.  But, this forum was not established so that people can identify women who are lesbians.   Lesbians have religious rights to include the right to take a stand on abortion.

Any religious right to abortion does not depend on the person not being a lesbian.

Warning:  If the personalization of this issue along with individual attacks on people, which includes naming people as lesbian continues, this thread will be closed to comment.

[RonCorson]

I cannot affect what the Wikipedia article says. You might take it up with Wikipedia however. I see you deleted the quote from Wikipedia here it is so people can read it. I just copied the text and made no additions at all   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Rabbinical_Association

 

Some more info on the group.

"Reconstructionist Judaism was founded in 1922 in the U.S. by Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan (1881-1983), in an effort to adapt classical Judaism to current ideas on science, art, and reason. Reconstructionists see Judaism as an evolving civilization rather than a religion, and reject the notion of a personal deity, miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, and the whole concept of the chosen people. With only about 60,000 members, it is a minor branch, headquartered in Philadelphia, but it has strongly influenced Reform Judaism. Rabbi Kaplan performed the first Bat Mitzvah, conferring on young women a religious rite of passage previously reserved only for Jewish males, but now commonplace among Reform congregations; he also began the havurah movement, in which Jews meet in small groups to study and observe Jewish rituals. Recently, Reconstructionism has restored references in its prayerbooks to supernatural events that it had earlier excised as being unbelievable but now accept on the level of “myth.” https://www.myss.com/free-resources/world-religions/judaism/the-four-branches-of-modern-judaism/

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron:  To be accurate as to what I deleted.  I deleted a post that you posted that cited a person by name and identified that person as a lesbian.

I am fine with you posting what you posted above.  In the post above, you did not call anyone a lesbian.

 

[RonCorson]

To be accurate I posted the text, the complete text from the Wikipedia article less the list of past presidents and references etc. I did not cite anyone I simply said the following is from Wikipedia. The article cited the year and name of the first RRA female president and followed that with a reference to the first openly lesbian or gay to be elected President of the RRA that was followed by the list of presidents which I did not post. Being  politically progressive the first woman and the first gay is something they are likely proud of. I could never imagine the way you interpreted the quote however, I do find it rather strange.

I did not know anything about the  Reconstructionist Judaism so I looked up the information in Wikipedia on the group that you referenced. It is a small segment of Judaism and as the second reference I posted says they do not consider themselves a religion. I do recall now that I have looked up about it, it was this group that a lot of leftists wrote articles about right after the Dodd decision overturning Roe v. Wade. It is rather interesting to know more about them.

Of course their stand on abortion is not surprising as the website MyJewishLearning begins their article on Reconstructionist Judaism:

Reconstructionist Judaism is a politically and religiously progressive Jewish movement that is the smallest and youngest of the so-called “big four” American Jewish denominations. It encompasses roughly 100 synagogues in the United States and a handful overseas and is the only one of the major movements that was established in the United States.

[Gregory Matthews]

The article cited the year and name of the first RRA female president and followed that with a reference to the first openly lesbian or gay to be elected President of the RRA . .

 

Exactly.  That was exactly what you posted and that was the reason that I removed it.

[phkrause]

An interesting article that has some points that I do agree with, but a number that I don't agree with!!

This Rabbi’s Statements on Abortion Rights Are So Spot On

Editor’s note: This piece was first published on May 3, 2022. We are republishing it today in light of the news about the Supreme Court’s devastating decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

https://www.kveller.com/this-rabbis-statements-on-abortion-rights-are-so-spot-on/?

[GHansen]

On 10/20/2022 at 2:31 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

In the post above, you did not call anyone a lesbian.

 

I personally oppose all forms of homosexuality; however, in the current culture, it's unclear what is wrong with identifying someone as a lesbian. True that for SDA denominational employment, it is unacceptable but a reconstructionist Jew isn't looking to work for the SDA denomination. 

[Ulunruh]

I suppose the question that arises is this:
Where does the countries laws and responsibilities to protect human life end, and religious liberty (or any personal liberty) to end human life begin?

When it comes to the abortion being a moral issue.   The moral aspect begins much earlier.   Our culture encourages promiscuity and fornication of many types.   As long as this is the case, thousands of unwanted babies will be conceived.   The demand for freedom from moral responsibility is the fore runner of the demand for abortions, as the greater number of unwanted babies are to a large extend the result of freedom from moral responsibilities. 

And, I"m afraid, the Biblical moral principles governing sexuality are not welcomed by a society that doesn't want God interfering with their lives.  On the winds of moral decay, abortions have hugely increased as a woman's right,  and Biblical believers' voices are unwelcomed. 

[bonnie]

15 hours ago, Ulunruh said:

I suppose the question that arises is this:
Where does the countries laws and responsibilities to protect human life end, and religious liberty (or any personal liberty) to end human life begin?

 

It depends ,if the woman does not want the child ,her decision to destroy it is called  "euphemistically "her religious freedom. The right to have control over her own body

If wanted by this same woman and a third party is responsible for ending  this pregnancy,it by some miracle becomes a child. The party responsible for ending the pregnancy can and often does find themselves prosecuted for manslaughter or second degree murder. A pregnant woman exercising her right to control her own body doing so by using harmful products deliberately can and has faced prosecution or loss of that "fetus" or ??? at birth if addicted. How does that work?

How does any honest person accept this as simply a woman's right to choose and yet accept the ever moving goal post as to what is being destroyed'

I had a son born at 7 months, at that time it was almost  an automatic death sentence It goes without saying he was very much wanted. The Dr pulled out all the stops to save his life. Even believing at the time his chances were slim to none.

Had this happened as a result of my choice to exercise my religious freedom my baby could have been left to die or at best given comfort care. 

Who that believes this is a "religious freedom issue"  Would have stood there as my baby struggled to breathe and say "well,I would never choose an abortion but I can't tell another woman what to do.? This was her right? Standard SDA response to the abortion issue.

So someone please explain the process that takes place where on the way to an abortion clinic this is  not a human life  If the woman changes her mind on the way to the clinic is hit by a drunk driver and loses what has suddenly become a baby, a little human being, when  did this happen and what process took place to make it so?