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

[Dr. Shane]

Ah...Neil is right on both points...nothing bad about either statement.

Nope. Bad history. Bad Bible study. Bad Science.

[Dr. Shane]

Revisionist history taking place...the south/slavery was a point of silence for the 'church'. EGW recommended it in order to not distract from the churches' greater message. At a later time she spoke out, but not from the beginning.

Those that started the thread are trying to create a conflict where there is none. Oh well......

Now I can agree with that.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Ah...Neil is right on both points...nothing bad about either statement.

Nope. Bad history. Bad Bible study. Bad Science.

Assurtions don't make the point, Shane...something that we have gone round and round on....evidence make the point.

Regarding history, prohibition was repealed due to the simple fact that it didn't work. Granted, it saved a few lives, but compared to the many thousands who violated prohibition, the wealth of the gangsters, the organizations of criminals like Capone, et al., the prohibition did NOT work. EGW, while she supported legislation for prohibition, was wrong in thinking that it would be a good thing. It wasn't.

As for bad bible, there have been many studys HERE on C/A that have shown that the admotion for "wine" not only included grape juice, but our understanding of what is known as 'wine' today. There are many studies on wines and the effects on the cardiovascular health, and they are the same....red wine in moderation is good. Now, on a personal note, I don't think anyone knows how much wine in "moderation" is for each individual. I therefore, do not advocate the consumption of alcohol. But it is not a sin as it is in your sight.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Neil D

First off, I never talked about the "murder of infants"...I rather talked about the murder of inspiration and character assination.

Ok -- and the early SDA position (by contrast)?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Regarding history, prohibition was repealed due to the simple fact that it didn't work.

It was repealed due to the public's perception that it didn't work. The public actually believed that by repealing prohibition they could do away with organized crime. Let me repeat that. The public actually believed that by repealing prohibition they could do away with organized crime. Ok, one more time for those that didn't quite catch it. The public actually believed that by repealing prohibition they could do away with organized crime.

So I ask. Did repealing prohibition work? Did it do away with organized crime?

Quote:

There are many studies on wines and the effects on the cardiovascular health

The Bible verse eluded to references digestive health not cardiovascular. Thus my point is correct. It was a bad Bible study. Alcohol tends to upset the stomach and irritate ulcers. I have not read too much medical opinions suggesting alcohol be consumed for digestive health.

Quote:

red wine in moderation is good.

Well that depends on what the word "good" means. For those that like the idea of cancer and chemotherapy I guess we can say that red wine is good.

[Bravus]

So your point is that the Bible is wrong about taking a little wine for thy stomach's sake?

[Stan]

It would be a shame if someone avoided getting an abortion BECAUSE they said "My Church does not allow it"

I would want it to be avoided because it is the right thing. NOT because it was dictated to them.

[Outta Here]

I agree, Stan, that it should not be dictated to them; however, when a girl turns to a church for answers, she should hear "it's the right thing" to save her child. She shouldn't hear "it's okay" to have an abortion. There have been many, many times I've asked professionals, church elders, and other people in authority, "Yes, I know what all the statistics say--what would YOU do?" If I'm asking, it means I give a lot of credence to their response.

But even so, there are some girls who will rely on what her church "dictates" as being right. In those cases, having the mandate, "Because my church won't allow it" will save another human being's life. And in any case, saving a human life is always a good thing--never a shame.

Have you ever heard a teenager say, "No thanks, I don't [drink, do drugs, have sex, drive too fast, stay out late, curse, break the Sabbath] because my parents don't allow it." It's not necessarily a response because someone else told them so, but sometimes it's a response because saying mom or dad said no is a lot easier than having to defend one's own belief in the face of one's peers.

[Dr. Shane]

So your point is that the Bible is wrong about taking a little wine for thy stomach's sake?

Since studies have shown that grape juice is soothing to the stomach, I would venture to guess that Paul was talking about grape juice. The other possibility is that there was a stomach virus or parasite at the time that was killed by alcohol so he was recommending fermented wine for medicinal use. I don't know of any virus or parasite existing today that can be treated with alcohol but... I imagine something like that could have existed.

[Dr. Shane]

It would be a shame if someone avoided getting an abortion BECAUSE they said "My Church does not allow it"

The church does provide direction for a lot of people. Each of us should dig into the Bible and give a Biblical reason for everything we do. However some people do just rely on what the church teaches. I would like to think that more Adventists rely on the Bible on average than do members of other denominations.

[Geoff]

I used to be pro-choice/anti-abortion, where I did not agree with abortion personally but I agreed with the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I would have encouraged a woman to not have one, I would have done everything I could to convince a woman to not abort a fetus, but at the end I would say it’s her choice and I would not try to change the law that allowed her to do so.

Recent discussions and arguments have led me to switch my position from pro-choice to pro-life, where I believe that abortions of convenience or on-demand should be made illegal, and abortions should only be allowed for cases of rape or the mother’s health. I have not become a militant pro-lifer, nor would I be too upset if abortions were severely limited to pre-first trimester or earlier, even up to one month or so. However, I have reached the mind-set where I can’t call myself a pro-choice person anymore. Before I say what changed my mind, I just want to give my thoughts on the majority of pro-life persons and arguments that I see out there.

Abortion is a topic that is like gasoline on a fire. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the matter without assumptions being made on both sides, and propaganda coming from both sides. Some pro-lifers seem to be intolerant, propaganda-spouting, non-thinking fundamentalists, unwilling to engage the opposition or acknowledge the points that they may have. For them, all pro-choicers are baby-killers and that’s all there is to it. Such close-mindedness doesn’t do anything for me, and those arguments played no part in my shift to a pro-life position. Some pro-choicers view the fetus as some form of parasite, and think that abortion is just another method of birth control, and until the baby is born, it’s an it. I never held that view, and I think that such a view is just as intolerant and unrealistic. I’ll grant that it’s hard to discuss something this touchy in a rational method, but if you as a pro-lifer are going to convince someone like me who was pro-choice, you have to come at it with a willingness to dialogue and answer questions from a non-partisan viewpoint. I was not proud to be pro-choice, but based on my view of free will, I felt that I had to respect the views of those who may not agree that life begins at birth, etc.

That brings me to my next point; Arguments on whether life begins at birth or not did not play a major role in changing my view. As a Christian, I am pre-disposed to believe that life does begin at birth…but I can’t force my view on someone else, especially when there is sufficient evidence that can be interpreted as saying life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own or not, etc. Arguments along this line will eventually boil down to whether one is using a religious worldview or not, and while this can work from a moral perspective (abortion is wrong), I don’t think it can work from a legal worldview. “Abortion is wrong, therefore it should be illegal.” “Why is abortion wrong?” “The Bible says so.” “But I don’t believe in the Bible.” “Doesn’t matter, I’m still making it illegal.” There are valid arguments against this position that I could entertain, but the main point I want to make here is that this argument leads to much moralizing and less clarity from a legal standpoint, at least to me.

The argument that changed my mind was when I realized the existence of the Unborn Victims of Violence act. I post it below:

he operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection ( and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

( An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

© If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

( The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(, (a)(2)(, and (a)(3)(, 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

© Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

When I became aware of this act, and read it, I realized that the law itself had defined life as being at birth, from the bolded section in clause (d). Having established that, I immediately saw a disconnect between clause ( c) and (d). Why is it a crime for someone else to harm an unborn child at any stage of development, yet it is ok for the mother to do so? I cannot answer that question, so I conclude that if it’s a crime for the one, it should be a crime for the other.

That is what caused me to become pro-life. I am interested in hearing other’s positions trying to explain this conundrum, but I think that this is the best argument the pro-life side has to repeal/alter existing abortion laws.

[carolaa]

You mentioned a couple times that you believe life begins at birth, but it sounds like you mean that life begins at conception. Can you clarify that?

[phkrause]

Hey carolaa, didn't a few of the writers mention that God knew them for conception. So to me that would mean that live begins at that point. Just a thought.

pk

[carolaa]

I'm not arguing one way or the other. I just noticed that his choice of words didn't seem to agree with his views.

[Nan]

There is room for lots of discussion......I have to have my own views as it is sometimes

a procedure I am asked to perform.

Almost always I have declined, except in the case of known abnormalities that would severely

impair the life of the child - or it would be still born.

I try to ask the lady if she will be able to live with her decision years down the track. I know

of one young person alive because of that question, there are hopefully more.

In this country it is not such a hot debate, abortion has effectively been legal for a number

of years. And here legally life begins once the child has drawn a breath - ie an assault against the mother

causing the death of the fetus is not murder or manslaughter.

[Jeannieb43]

In this country it is not such a hot debate, abortion has effectively been legal for a number

of years. And here legally life begins once the child has drawn a breath - ie an assault against the mother

causing the death of the fetus is not murder or manslaughter.

A much more intelligent approach, IMHO.

After all, at Creation God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." IOW, humans did [do] not become living souls until they breathe.

But we're in the midst of the turmoil of the last days. Satan is using pseudo-religion to "deceive if it were possible the very elect."

[Geoff]

I'm not arguing one way or the other. I just noticed that his choice of words didn't seem to agree with his views.

My bad. I meant that as a Christian, I am pre-disposed towards believing that life begins at CONCEPTION, but I wouldn't want to use it in a legal sense. If pressed, I'd say that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, but that is just my compromise and I could see the points for both 'life begins at conception' and 'life begins at birth.'

[BobRyan]

The attitude Towards Abortion Exhibited by the SDA Pioneers

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.

James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

John Harvey Kellogg

Quote:

The idea held by many that the destruction of fetal life is not a crime until after “quickening” has occurred is a gross and mischievous error. No change occurs in the developing human being at this period. The so-called period of “quickening” is simply the period at which the movements of the little one become sufficiently active and vigorous to attract the attention of the mother. Long before this, slight movements have been taking place, and from the very moment of conception, those processes have been in operation which result in the production of a fully developed human being from a mere jelly drop, a minute cell. As soon as this development begins, a new human being has come into existence--in embryo, it is true, but possessed of its own individuality, with its own future, its possibilities of joy, grief, success, failure, fame, and ignominy.

From this moment, it acquires the right to life, a right so sacred that in every land to violate it is to incur the penalty of death. How many murderers and murderesses have gone unpunished! None but God knows the full extent of this most heinous crime; but the Searcher of all hearts knows and remembers every one who has thus transgressed; and in the day of final reckoning, what will the verdict be? Murder? MURDER [sic], child murder, the slaughter of the innocents more cruel than Herod, more cold-blooded than the midnight assassin, more criminal than the man who slays his enemy--the most unnatural, the most inhuman, the most revolting of all crimes against human life. [3]

J.N. Andrews

Quote:

One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin, read Ps. 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [4]

John Todd

Quote:

As to guilt, I want all to know that, in the sight of God, it is willful murder. “The willful killing of a human being at any stage of its existence, is murder. It is quenching immortal existence, it is destroying what, in a few months or weeks, would bear God’s image: and if anyone thinks she can do it without the guilt of murder, she is greatly mistaken. The very remembrance of this guilt has often upset the reason, and by remorse, turned the doer into madness.” [5]

Uriah Smith

Quote:

You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and I’ll show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper. [7]

Ellen G. White

Quote:

If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. 2SM 429-430

2. James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

3. J.H. Kellogg. Man The Masterpiece (Battle Creek, Michigan: Modern Medicine Publishing Co., 1894), 424-425. For an electronic access to Dr. Kellogg’s opinion on abortion, click on the following Internet link provided by the University of Virginia Library: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...;division=div1. Accessed on 25 Oct. 2006.

4. J.N. Andrews, Editor. “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.

5. John Todd. “Fashionable Murder” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (June 25, 1867): 29-30.

6. If no moral principles are excluded, then it follows that abortion is included here, unless one would dare to argue that abortion is not a moral issue.

7. Uriah Smith. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Quoted by P.A. Lorenz. Adventist For Life News, Vol. III, Issue 3. ( n.d.,Heritage Edition): 3.

[BobRyan]

After all, at Creation God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." IOW, humans did [do] not become living souls until they breathe.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Using your rendition we can kill anyone who holds their breath.

The "breath of life" is the "life principle" it applies to every living animal (yes even to single celled animals that do not "breath air" as a baby using it's lungs outside the womb) including fish and every living cell IN a fish. Every cell in your body "only has life" because it has the "life principle" that God calls "The breath of life". Kill the cell (radiation for example) - and it simply is not coming back to life.

Hence - no such thing as abiogensis. No such thing as evolutionism.

This is why God calls it "a LIFE for a LIFE" in Ex 21 when executing a man who inadvertantly kills the unborn child of a woman.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Nan

In this country it is not such a hot debate, abortion has effectively been legal for a number

of years. And here legally life begins once the child has drawn a breath - ie an assault against the mother

causing the death of the fetus is not murder or manslaughter.

A much more intelligent approach, IMHO.

After all, at Creation God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." IOW, humans did [do] not become living souls until they breathe.

But we're in the midst of the turmoil of the last days. Satan is using pseudo-religion to "deceive if it were possible the very elect."

When honestly understood ... this is a good point.

[BobRyan]

As long as you keep in mind the difference between "just plain breathing" and the Bible concept of "the breath of life" - as a life principle applicable even to single celled organisms and "yes" even fish in the sea - the issue is clear.

Ex 21:22-23 declares that the taking of life -- even of the unborn -- gets the death penalty - or as the Bible says "A LIFE for a LIFE".

All the fog and ambiguity evaporates in an instant.

Hence the strong opinions we see being expressed on this matter by early SDA pioneers -

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post311740

in Christ,

Bob

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Nan

In this country it is not such a hot debate, abortion has effectively been legal for a number

of years. And here legally life begins once the child has drawn a breath - ie an assault against the mother

causing the death of the fetus is not murder or manslaughter.

A much more intelligent approach, IMHO.

After all, at Creation God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." IOW, humans did [do] not become living souls until they breathe.

But we're in the midst of the turmoil of the last days. Satan is using pseudo-religion to "deceive if it were possible the very elect."

I agree with the above statement.