A Dramatic Shift In the SDA Church From Pro-Life to Pro-Choice

[Planey]

It must be made only by the woman and her doctor. By nobody else.

Jeannie, do you think that the prospective father should have any say?

Graeme

[Tammy]

Gerry, my position is simple.

I'm old enough to remember a time when abortions were quite infrequent. They were usually "spontaneous" which were usually called "miscarriages." In that case the mother grieved for a period of time, but since she had had no part in planning it, there was no feeling of guilt. Otherwise, there were "therapeutic" abortions, decided by the patient and her doctor together, for purposes of saving her life. She of course would have been very thankful at that point.

The third type of abortion, that is, for the mental health and well-being of the mother, has become more common in recent years [i recall the year California made therapeutic abortions legal; my three children were babies then, but I was glad if I needed it that I'd be able to take advantage of that law for myself, since for me, three was enough.] Never at any time would I have grieved or felt guilty if I'd chosen a therapeutic abortion in the first trimester. Because, you must realize, that the mother is in the best position to determine whether or not the family can handle having another mouth to feed, etc.

I've never had an abortion, and neither has any of my children. So I can't say first-hand how I'd feel. But my current opinion is that the radical right has advertised the "personhood" of a fetus to such an extent these days that it makes a woman feel unnecessary guilt when she is forced to have an abortion.

At any rate, that decision is not mine to make for someone else. It must be made only by the woman and her doctor. By nobody else. There shouldn't be any great grieving or sense of guilt when going through it, if all avenues have been explored before the choice is made.

[Dr. Shane]

God certainly has given personhood to the unborn child. Speaking to Jeremiah God said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jer. 15)

[BobRyan]

Thank you for sharing this Tammy. I am in agreement with the pioneers of the church. And although I believe that abortion to save the life of the mother should be up to her, I don't believe it's right to kill a child just because he's deformed, or the product of rape or incest. Studies have shown that abortion just adds even more trauma to victims of rape and incest.

A couple of points of interest.

1. In the 1800's Ellen White dealt with the subject of the "Value of human life" in the form of slavery. Today we face the SAME topic - but in the form of popular abortion on demand. Sadly we don't seem to have the same "clarity" on the value of human life that Ellen White had. And dare I say that some in the RL department are actually proud of that fact.

2. Evolutionism undermines the concept of the value of human life at all stages. The more our church embraces evolutionism as our new religion - the more we will devalue human life.

3. Choice to murder has been around since the days of Cain. Nothing new about that "choice".

in Christ,

Bob

[Neil D]

It has been over 10 days since I have been here...and I see this thread of interest to me...I have read the opening volley of this thread and look at all the "well documented" quotes from our pioneers. Well, time to change my opinion, I think....

So, being the reasonable adventist that I am, I check the EGW quote. I have 2 Selected Messages, and I turn to page 429-430. I read that EGW is talking about live children, being pro-created to the harm of the family. The author 'reasons' that by harming the children in this mannor, EGW gives sanction that abortion is also just as wrong...

This is an opinion. NOT quoting from the pioneers. This is putting words into the mouths of pioneers that just isn't there. this is manipulation of facts, and thought and stiffling creative progressive thinking in the very least. This is killing of inspiration.

Such things are worthy of contempt and castigation from the church as a whole, in my opinion. They do not allow an individual to come up with thier own God-assisted morals. It is a manipulation and a creation of people into thier own image, ...not God's image.

So, to whomever put up the quote and the sub-reference....I have only this to say....May you be blessed in your new found belief..and may you find peace....But for me and my house, we will choose the Lord and let Him guide our morals...not you.

[Jeannieb43]

Isn't it interesting how some people revise the truth to fit their own point of view....

[i haven't read this whole thread so don't know who may have done so here.]

[Neil D]

A couple of points of interest.

1. In the 1800's Ellen White dealt with the subject of the "Value of human life" in the form of slavery. Today we face the SAME topic - but in the form of popular abortion on demand. Sadly we don't seem to have the same "clarity" on the value of human life that Ellen White had. And dare I say that some in the RL department are actually proud of that fact.

2. Evolutionism undermines the concept of the value of human life at all stages. The more our church embraces evolutionism as our new religion - the more we will devalue human life.

3. Choice to murder has been around since the days of Cain. Nothing new about that "choice".

in Christ,

Bob

It is of interest to me, that arguements are made to bulster pollerizing [sp]viewpoints....

What is left out of the equation, in all these arguements, is God and the interaction of His children....Oh, I know, many HERE complain of how BAD THE WORLD is...Many don't see that there is lovelyness in the experience of life....

For example, I was watching a surgury and listening to one of the OBGYN doctor's stories. He had a female patient come in, wanting a tubal ligation, to prevent any more children. She had her 3 kids and didn't want any more. So, in talking to the doctor, he talked about banding the fallopian tubes which stops the process of egg meeting with sperm. There was a possible problem, in that the band [a rubber neoprene band, much like a rubber band, and since there are two fallopian tubes, there were 2 'rubber bands'] might come off, but the incidence was very low and rare. The female patient aggreed to the proceedure and was very happy with this proceedure, since it was less intrusive than others at the time.

About 3 months later, the woman came back for an exam, and the doctor had to tell her that she was pregnant. Apparently, one of the bands had come off and didn't take. The doctor said, at the time of birth, that the woman was very pleased that she had another child..."BUT", she said, "This time, you will make sure that banding takes effect." He laughed, as he said, "she had every right to sue me. But she didn't. And as far as I know, the child and parent are doing well."

I submit to you, that people change thier opinions due to changing circumstances. There are times that you females want to be pregnant, and there are times that the very thought is repulsive. Males like the idea of being "daddy"s, but there are times that men just don't want anything that are chips, seeds or apples from any blocks, or trees. The goverment must be all things to all people at various times to thier lives. That means that the goverement needs to be there for the people....Let people make the decisions that they need, when they need them, as they need them....

Let the people make policy for themselves as they need it...If you don't want to use goveremnt reasources, then just don't use them...Be individuals...not sheep...

[BobRyan]

Quote:

4. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church.

That alone makes up for over 90% of the abortions in the US.

There are two issues at hand that one needs to keep separate when discussing this issue as it relates to the church.

1. Sin. What does the church consider sinful?

2. Civil law. How much does the church want to use the civil government to enforces its religious positions?

I believe the Adventist church takes a position that over 90% of abortions are sinful but that we do not want to use the civil government to enforce our religious view of abortion on the population as a whole.

When pushing for a constitutional ammendment to forbid the sale of Alcohol in the 1800's (prohibition) where do you think Ellen White stood on point number 2 above?

How about in the value-of-human-life case of slavery in the U.S? Where would she have been on point number 2 above?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

So, being the reasonable adventist that I am, I check the EGW quote. I have 2 Selected Messages, and I turn to page 429-430. I read that EGW is talking about live children, being pro-created to the harm of the family. The author 'reasons' that by harming the children in this mannor, EGW gives sanction that abortion is also just as wrong...

This is an opinion. NOT quoting from the pioneers.

[BobRyan]

It appears that Ellen White's statement about "murdering their children...before birth" is in agreement with James White's view of the status of the unborn as well

Quote:

James White

Quote:

Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. [2]

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

So, being the reasonable adventist that I am, I check the EGW quote. I have 2 Selected Messages, and I turn to page 429-430. I read that EGW is talking about live children, being pro-created to the harm of the family. The author 'reasons' that by harming the children in this mannor, EGW gives sanction that abortion is also just as wrong...

This is an opinion. NOT quoting from the pioneers.

Well first of all - lets go to 2SM 429-430 to see if maybe there is something there endorsing the murder of infants.

[Dr. Shane]

The Adventist church clearly teaches that abortion for birth-control, convenience and to choose the sex of the child is sinful. If it is not murder, if it is not terminating human life, why would this be sinful? If the unborn fetus is just part of the woman's body (and not a person itself) why would it be sinful for the woman to exterminate it?

[Dr. Shane]

When pushing for a constitutional ammendment to forbid the sale of Alcohol in the 1800's (prohibition) where do you think Ellen White stood on point number 2 above?

How about in the value-of-human-life case of slavery in the U.S? Where would she have been on point number 2 above?

There are certain issues that the church believes the civil government should be involved with. Protecting religious liberty is one issue that the church continues to lobby legislatures and fight legal battles within various courts for.

The church clearly teaches that abortion is sinful in most all cases which it is used for today. So why don't we take a political position on it? I think one reason is because in so doing we could divert the church's primary purpose of spreading the three angels' message. The church simply takes a neutral position. The church is not taking a position that abortion should be legal or illegal. It takes the position that abortion, in most cases, is sinful and the legality of abortion should be left to the civil government.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

When pushing for a constitutional ammendment to forbid the sale of Alcohol in the 1800's (prohibition) where do you think Ellen White stood on point number 2 above?

How about in the value-of-human-life case of slavery in the U.S? Where would she have been on point number 2 above?

There are certain issues that the church believes the civil government should be involved with. Protecting religious liberty is one issue that the church continues to lobby legislatures and fight legal battles within various courts for.

The church clearly teaches that abortion is sinful in most all cases which it is used for today. So why don't we take a political position on it? I think one reason is because in so doing we could divert the church's primary purpose of spreading the three angels' message. The church simply takes a neutral position. The church is not taking a position that abortion should be legal or illegal. It takes the position that abortion, in most cases, is sinful and the legality of abortion should be left to the civil government.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "neutral" position....you are either pro-life or pro-death....there is no "sitting on the fence" (that is what being neutral is). How "neutral" do you think the church was when EGW was alive in regards to prohibition? There was no neutrality then....she even said that it was so important, that we should go and vote on Sabbath if need be, against prohibition. What would she say we should do today? I have no doubt that she would say we should be active in fighting against such wickedness.... this is why we are where we are, as a people...because we are afraid to take a stand for the truth.

[Neil D]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "neutral" position....you are either pro-life or pro-death....there is no "sitting on the fence" (that is what being neutral is). How "neutral" do you think the church was when EGW was alive in regards to prohibition? There was no neutrality then....she even said that it was so important, that we should go and vote on Sabbath if need be, against prohibition. What would she say we should do today? I have no doubt that she would say we should be active in fighting against such wickedness.... this is why we are where we are, as a people...because we are afraid to take a stand for the truth.

And EGW was wrong in taking the stance against the prohibition. Look at what it did.....created some of the most powerful gangsters who fed the desire for alcohol. Sure, she was against alcohol, that caused drunkeness, ruined homes and characcter...

Anyone is against anything that causes those things....even drunks.

But the bible says that a LITTLE wine is good for a person...The principle gleened from the bible is that some small amount of a specific alcohol is good for the body. Science has caught up with the Bible and confirms that red wine is good for the body. Knowing that, what does that say against the prophet whom you may hold with such extreeme views?

[Neil D]

Bump

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

When pushing for a constitutional ammendment to forbid the sale of Alcohol in the 1800's (prohibition) where do you think Ellen White stood on point number 2 above?

How about in the value-of-human-life case of slavery in the U.S? Where would she have been on point number 2 above?

There are certain issues that the church believes the civil government should be involved with. Protecting religious liberty is one issue that the church continues to lobby legislatures and fight legal battles within various courts for.

The church clearly teaches that abortion is sinful in most all cases which it is used for today. So why don't we take a political position on it? I think one reason is because in so doing we could divert the church's primary purpose of spreading the three angels' message. The church simply takes a neutral position. The church is not taking a position that abortion should be legal or illegal. It takes the position that abortion, in most cases, is sinful and the legality of abortion should be left to the civil government.

Using that rule - the SDA church would have been gagged on the subject of slavery and prohibition.

It is instructive that nothing of the kind was done. In fact Ellen White urged that we "VOTE ON SABBATH" if it came down to it - on the subject of prohibition. She did this EVEN while fellow adventists objected that in joining in on the subject of prohibition they were in fact partnering with PRO-SUNDAY legislation groups in active support!!

More than that she and James White both issued "God will get you " style warnings to those who refused to oppose Slavery etc.

There was nothing softsoap about this act in the 1800's. They were taking these stands in the most strict Adventist environment where many members were told it was sin to discuss politics and many were admonished not even to vote in normal elections!

[BobRyan]

So, being the reasonable adventist that I am, I check the EGW quote. I have 2 Selected Messages, and I turn to page 429-430. I read that EGW is talking about live children, being pro-created to the harm of the family. The author 'reasons' that by harming the children in this mannor, EGW gives sanction that abortion is also just as wrong...

This is an opinion. NOT quoting from the pioneers.

[BobRyan]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "neutral" position....you are either pro-life or pro-death....there is no "sitting on the fence" (that is what being neutral is). How "neutral" do you think the church was when EGW was alive in regards to prohibition? There was no neutrality then....she even said that it was so important, that we should go and vote on Sabbath if need be, against prohibition. What would she say we should do today? I have no doubt that she would say we should be active in fighting against such wickedness.... this is why we are where we are, as a people...because we are afraid to take a stand for the truth.

[carolaa]

Far better for the church to speak out in love against these evils than to try to legislate them.

[carolaa]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "neutral" position....you are either pro-life or pro-death....there is no "sitting on the fence" (that is what being neutral is).

Fortunately, most people do not see this as such a black and white issue.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "neutral" position....

We are talking about the church as an organization. Organizations take neutral positions on all kinds of issues all the time. The Adventist church exists in many countries all across the world. In some of those countries abortion is legal and in others it is illegal. The Adventist church does not instruct its members how to vote regarding the issue in any country. We take a neutral position.

[Dr. Shane]

And EGW was wrong in taking the stance against the prohibition. Look at what it did.....created some of the most powerful gangsters who fed the desire for alcohol.

That is a bad history lesson. Gangsters existed before prohibition and repealing prohibition didn't get rid of gangsters. Prohibition was a blessing on this country. It took over 30 years after the repeal of prohibition before alcohol consumption reached the same levels that it had been prior to prohibition. Domestic abuse dropped dramatically during prohibition as did employee absenteeism.

[Dr. Shane]

But the bible says that a LITTLE wine is good for a person...The principle gleened from the bible is that some small amount of a specific alcohol is good for the body.

[Bravus]

In a similar vein, I don't think there has been a 'dramatic change'. The official position of the church has not changed. It's possible that those with different opinions in the pews are emboldened to be a bit more vocal, but I think there has always been a broad range of views within the church.

The very simplistic 'this or that' formulations are just too simplistic for the real world. Values, including the value of life, are paramount, but require intelligence to apply in particular specific circumstances. Laws are often too blunt as instruments for applying this.

I have told the story of our first daughter here before, but will tell it again if people need it. Suffice it to say that we aborted, with great pain, despite a very strong belief in the sanctity of life. It is that experience that has helped me to understand that this sin-sick world throws complex situations at us that simple answers won't address.