Is Abortion Sinful?

[Raphael]

I read quoted verses in other threads mentioning 'the spirit was with the child' (in the womb)..

Well, in Genesis, somewhere.. it reads, the Spirit brooded upon the waters.. meaning that God could be or move upon anything..

How about EGWs writings stating the (born ones!) babies won't go to heaven unless their mothers do..?

Does that imply that any creation with no functioning intelligence would be waived upon its, his or her 'right' to personal independent salvation.

The original story goes that everyone goes to heaven alone.. can't be helped by anyone, be it dad, mom or darling.. except for this 'newfound' knowledge of babies (naturally including ones in the womb), getting a free ride to heaven through their mamas.

Does this imply abortions to be OK?

..say, the would be mama had all the reasons in the world to not want her babe born, either that be unprepared, too young, impoverished, rape and so on..

.. just loitering thoughts and queries ..

Best,

Raphael

[John317]

How about EGWs writings stating the (born ones!) babies won't go to heaven unless their mothers do..?

Can you give the reference for that quote?

[Raphael]

Now that's one of my incredible flaws. Sorry can't quote but I am sure that she mentioned it not once but perhaps several times.. among others that mothers would meet their deceased babies in heaven..

Perhaps someone can help me quote..?

Thanks,

Raphael

[John317]

Now that's one of my incredible flaws. Sorry can't quote but I am sure that she mentioned it not once but perhaps several times.. among others that mothers would meet their deceased babies in heaven..

Perhaps someone can help me quote..?

Thanks,

Raphael

Like this one?--

As the little infants come forth immortal from their dusty beds, they immediately wing their way to their mother's arms. They meet again never more to part. But many of the little ones have no mother there. We listen in vain for the rapturous song of triumph from the mother. The angels receive the motherless infants and conduct them to the tree of life. Jesus places the golden ring of light, the crown upon their little heads. God grant that the dear mother of "Eva" may be there, that her little wings may be folded upon the glad bosom of her mother. E. G. White. {YI, April 1, 1858 par. 3}

[Raphael]

hhhmmmmmm, right.. interesting that motherless infants can still go to heaven.. since they have no decision making abilities giving rise to the idea that there must be lots of motherless babies in heaven..

I believe there might be other quotes as well, perhaps?

Thanks,

Raphael

[Raphael]

What is the official stand of SDAs to abortion?

[John317]

From wikipedia--

The official Adventist position on abortion is that "abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church." At times, however, women may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life or health, severe congenital defects in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; in these cases individuals are counseled to make their own decisions.*

*^ "Guidelines on Abortion" (October 12, 1992).

[Raphael]

My internet connections getting slow, must do something about it.. I was going to search Catholic's views on abortion. On the surface, our SDAs stand on abortion is very similar if not the same to the Catholics then, right?

[Raphael]

Will leave now to fix that internet connection.

[John317]

... On the surface, our SDAs stand on abortion is very similar if not the same to the Catholics then, right?

Our church's stand on abortion is not nearly as "strict" as the Catholic position. SDA position leaves more room for individual decision making.

Wikipedia--

Quote:

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." ...

... The Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, Fundamentalist Protestant, and Roman Catholic denominations are against abortion. However, some of these denominations make exceptions in their doctrine for abortion performed to save the life of the mother, and in cases of pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. Roman Catholics make no exceptions for cases of rape and incest, arguing that the way conception occurs makes no bearing on the sin of abortion. The Roman Catholic Church also does not make an exception for the life of the mother per se, but it does not condemn procedures intended to save the mother that result in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect."

Quote:

The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.

To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has been demonstrated that, from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time - a rather lengthy time - to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definite judgement on questions which are properly philosophical and moral, such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."

Declaration on Procured Abortion

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Raphael]

Aha, my connections back to normal.

It seems that there is not much that can be made out for a heated discussion, taken into notice that all mainstream religion are basically, clearly against abortion.

So much for my loitering.. My apologies for misreading EGWs writings (turns out that motherless babies wing their way to heavenly bliss, but does not state them to be fatherless..).

But just a dwindling thought.. Would those motherless babies in heaven be there upon their own 'claim of faith upon salvation' or perhaps simply because of the righteousness of their parents..? Seems hard to understand babies laying claim upon Gods promises..

If the answer was due to their parents (not only mom this time) then the situation may revert back to what I said above that God does not look (directly) upon babies as salvation material, only due to their parents victory.

If the answer was because of the babies themselves then that would be interesting, suggesting that there would be exceeding throngs of 'parentless' babies in heaven.

Best,

Raphael

[melvin mccarty]

Would this then be official SDA doctrine? Maybe number 29...mel

[Nan]

Maybe there are some things about which we have insufficient information to be definitive.

I am looking forward to meeting my daughter for the first time in heaven, but that is another story.

[Dr. Shane]

My internet connections getting slow, must do something about it.. I was going to search Catholic's views on abortion. On the surface, our SDAs stand on abortion is very similar if not the same to the Catholics then, right?

The official Adventist position on abortion is that "abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church." At times, however, women may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life or health, severe congenital defects in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; in these cases individuals are counseled to make their own decisions.*

*^ "Guidelines on Abortion" (October 12, 1992).

I 100% agree with the stated Adventist position here. It is quite different from the Catholic position.

[olger]

Yes.

Next question please.

[FreeThinker]

The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible.

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

[FreeThinker]

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.

The Commandments, Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion was an important concern, why didn't the bible say so?

Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

[FreeThinker]

Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass.

[Raphael]

Very revealing, FreeThinker.. that losing an adult life is of no similarity to the 'losing' of an unborn child..

Antiabortionist perhaps capitalize and exploit upon the extremely prevailing related 'human subjectivity', that every cutey adorable imaginable thing is too dear to deal away with..

Antiabortionists would indeed consider you and the book of Exodus to be way left, near the coast..

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

Let's not be so quick to drink the kool-aid. The passage being quoted here is not clear. Repeat: not clear, not clear, not clear, not clear. Just in case I wasn't clear,

Exodus 21:22-25 is not clear.

The Hebrew word in verse 22 which is translated "depart" literally means "to go out". It does not address the issue of the baby is born premature or still born. It could be either. It simply is not clear. The verse is not clear. It cannot honestly be used by either pro-life or pro-choice supporters. Furthermore, verse 23 does not indicate that the "mischief" must happen to the woman. There are two ways to read the verse and and without other Scripture, there is no way to tell which way is right.

Pro-choice version:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit is stillborn, and yet no harm follows to the woman; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if the woman die, then thou shalt give life for life...

Pro-life version:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart prematurely, and yet no harm follows to the baby; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if the mother or baby die, then thou shalt give life for life...

[Raphael]

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The KoolAid kind of looks clear enough.. think so? ..though it may not feel that kool to everyone..

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

I have seen both sides of the abortion debate use Exodus 21:22-25 to defend their position. It is simply intellectually dishonest for either side to do so.

It is like Luke 23:43: "And He said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." If we move the coma it reads "And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Big difference. So which is right? Just like Exodus 21:22-25, we cannot use those verses by themselves to figure it out. We must study the topic throughout the Scriptures and use other Scriptures in order to understand these passages.

[Raphael]

Perhaps people should refer back to the Greek, Hebrew or ancient writings.

May anyone in this forum, with a PhD (or say, learning) in this ancient literature step forward and proclaim their thoughts upon this essential matter of whether this is cool or not cool..? Divine blessings would be your instant attainment..

Ofcourse, objectivity would be greatly appreciated since very few would be able to (immediately) contest matters upon ancient literature..

Best,

Raphael

[FreeThinker]

Let's not be so quick to drink the kool-aid. The passage being quoted here is not clear. Repeat: not clear, not clear, not clear, not clear. Just in case I wasn't clear,

Exodus 21:22-25 is not clear.

The Hebrew word in verse 22 which is translated "depart" literally means "to go out". It does not address the issue of the baby is born premature or still born. It could be either. It simply is not clear. The verse is not clear. It cannot honestly be used by either pro-life or pro-choice supporters. Furthermore, verse 23 does not indicate that the "mischief" must happen to the woman. There are two ways to read the verse and and without other Scripture, there is no way to tell which way is right.

Hey Shane,

You were very clear in your assertation that you don't see this clearly. I guess it's all in how you look at things. It seems blindingly clear to me. I see no ambiguity there.

Thankfully, it's not up to us to decide. For you my fried are a sinner, just like me.

May God bless each and every one of us.

[Dr. Shane]

Kool-aid drinkers put on their glasses when they read the Bible and that is why they can't understand how others can read it differently. Millions claim to read the Bible using the Sola Scriptura principle and yet they believe Sunday is the Lord's Day.

The Hebrew word used in Exodus 21:22 is used over 1,000 times in the Hebrew Scripture and translated 165 different ways. In Jeremiah 1:5 it is clearly translated as a live birth. The NASB originally interpreted the passage "...a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage..." but in 1995 changed it to read "...a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely..."

Here is a link where the passage is discussed at length. What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion