Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[teresaq]

...A person who favors legalization (the status quo)of abortion supports a position which both the Scriptures and our Adventist founders oppose....

i would like to see evidence to that fact, both biblical and from the pioneers, please.

i would like to see it without the "defining statements" that usually go with trying to persuade others to our view, also, please.

but even if you missed the second paragraph i will delete any statements that are attached to the "evidence" and read the "evidence in its context. im sure no one would mind that. :)

[Nic Samojluk]

The role of the government is to have a set of laws which tend to protect the life and property of all the human beings living under its jurisdiction.

[Nic Samojluk]

Teresa,

The “bible does not address abortion.”? I have quoted twice the Exodus 21: 22-23 text where it states that there was a death penalty for the murder of an unborn baby. How can you claim that the Bible does not address the issue of abortion? Besides, we have the clear prohibition contained in the Sixth Commandment.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,”

Your argument that neither Jesus nor the apostles talked specifically about abortion does not hold water either. Arguments from silence are irrelevant; otherwise we should be free to practice polygamy and I should be entitled to buy a few slaves, since Jesus condemned neither slavery nor polygamy.

Please, remember that the Hippocratic Oath was written five centuries B.C. Yes, we are free to repeat the atrocities of the past, and we are free to engage in the genocide of the unborn, but we will one day have to face the judgment of the Most High, and none of these excuses will help us then.

[Guest]

Amen Nic!

[Dr. Shane]

Tell me why would the defenders of abortion report 744,600 abortions in the U.S. for 1973, one million by 1975, and 1.5 million for 1983, and at the same time argue that the legalization of abortion tends to diminish the number of abortions. Can’t you see the contradiction here? The data contradicts their argument in defense of abortion.

We have been over this before. I am an honest man. Is this going to be an honest conversation or a dishonest one? Please to not ask for information and explanations I have already provided.

Now, for the benefit of those that did not participate in the last discussion I will repeat it again.

First: I do not support abortion laws in the US. I do not support abortion-on-demand. Abortion needs to be restricted. Abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy needs to be banned. Abortion needs to have a 48-hour waiting or cool-off period. Mandatory pre-abortion counseling needs to be law. Abortion providers should not be allowed to have any financial interests with firms providing family planning or sexual education.

So the above statistics is not comparing abortion in a nation with an abortion ban with abortion in a nation with legal-but-restricted abortion.

Second, the above statistics do not take into account the sexual revolution that happened in the 1970s and 1980s. The reason for an increase in abortions had a lot to do with more people having sex outside of marriage and a dramatic increase in unwed pregnant women over the same period of time.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

That depends on who you talk to' date='Teresa. Those who think that drug use is a personal matter and are convinced that it affects no one other than the user will argue that criminalizing drug use is a violation of their Constitutional and moral rights.Those who see a negative effect of free drug use on their society will argue that the overall detrimental result of that drug use outweighs the personal rights claim of those who cause the negative effects. Since both sides cannot be right,who gets to make the final call? [/quote']what is the documentation of drug abuse and how it affects others, even if just the family?

I'm not sure how your question answers my question. Are you suggesting that documentation of a claim should be the determinent in establishing law? Or did you intend something else? I'm a little slow so please help me connect the dots.Thanks

[Dr. Shane]

Would you also vote for legalizing the use of drugs, for decriminalizing rape, incest, burglary, and sexual abuse of children? If not, tell me why not!

Wheww!!! Now that's a lot.

Drugs: I favor house arrest for non-violent drug crimes. Perhaps even some hefty fines to be garnished out of their wages. Drug crimes involving weapons of deadly force should be punished with hard-labor work camps.

Drugs being illegal does not stop drug addicts from finding and using them. It never will. However it does serve as a deterrent for many to not use them in the first place and not become addicted.

The abortion comparison fails because the pregnant and panicking woman is like the addict already addicted to drugs. If she wants an abortion, she will get one, just like a drug addict will find drugs. When abortion is legal but restricted she will be required to go through some counseling and may be persuaded not to abort the child. No such counseling will take place if she seeks out an illegal abortion.

Rape: Rape needs to stay illegal. There are various degrees of rape. I think a jury should be able to decide the appropriate punishment from house arrest to hard labor.

Incest: While I find it morally objectionable, I think incest between two willing adults is none of the government's business.

Burglary: I favor house arrest and restitution. Burglary is theft with the victim absent. If the victim is present it is robbery.

Sexual Abuse of Children: I feel the same about this as I do rape.

[Dr. Shane]

The “bible does not address abortion.”? I have quoted twice the Exodus 21: 22-23 text where it states that there was a death penalty for the murder of an unborn baby. How can you claim that the Bible does not address the issue of abortion?

Liberal Christian theology actually uses Exodus 21:22-23 to justify abortion. I agree with Nic here. I think Exodus 21:22-23 does require the death penalty for one causing an abortion, and many Hebrew scholars agree with that position.

However that does not justify the civil government passing a ban no abortion. The civil government cannot ban every sin.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...A person who favors legalization (the status quo)of abortion supports a position which both the Scriptures and our Adventist founders oppose....

i would like to see evidence to that fact, both biblical and from the pioneers, please.

i would like to see it without the "defining statements" that usually go with trying to persuade others to our view, also, please.

but even if you missed the second paragraph i will delete any statements that are attached to the "evidence" and read the "evidence in its context. im sure no one would mind that.

Teresa,

Regarding the evidence from Scripture, I have quoted the text found in Exodus 21:22-23 three times already. Said Scriptural passage indicates that the death penalty was called for the murder of the unborn. Here it is one more time:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ...”

And here is the evidence from our early Adventist pioneers:

“The attitude Towards Abortion Exhibited by the SDA Pioneers [1]

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]

John Harvey Kellogg

Quote:

The idea held by many that the destruction of foetal [sic] 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 Gods book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children. [4]

Uriah Smith

Quote:

You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and Ill 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 [8] 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. [9]

http://sdaforum.com/page114.html

Uriah Smith

Quote:

You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and Ill 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]

http://sdaforum.com/page114.html

[doug yowell]

Teresa, You state that the Bible says nothing about abortion. Have you thought about the implications of your analysis? When I was a boy,growing up in the Adventist system, I was taught that the Bible held the answer to EVERY question in life. To this day I still believe that! To conclude that abortion is excluded from that "every" list is a rather drastic turnaround in our contemporary church's confidence in the Bible.But if you are right, it is reasonable to conclude that Omniscient Creator of the Universe,looking down the ages of time, and knowing that His Church would face this divisive moral issue, decided not to get involved!? So much for "doctrine,reproof,correction,and instruction in righteousness",right? So if the Bible says nothing in regards to abortion,what exactly do you base your abortion opinions on? And why should I,as a professing Christian,be willing to accept them?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

The “bible does not address abortion.”? I have quoted twice the Exodus 21: 22-23 text where it states that there was a death penalty for the murder of an unborn baby. How can you claim that the Bible does not address the issue of abortion?

Liberal Christian theology actually uses Exodus 21:22-23 to justify abortion. I agree with Nic here. I think Exodus 21:22-23 does require the death penalty for one causing an abortion, and many Hebrew scholars agree with that position.

However that does not justify the civil government passing a ban no abortion. The civil government cannot ban every sin.

Shane, aren't you missing something? Ex.21 IS the civil government!!

[doug yowell]

Shane, don't you find it rather odd that (according to your analysis) a ban on abortion seems to be the only law that doesn't deter a crime?

[John317]

Ex.21 IS the civil government!!

But it is a government of a theocracy, where God ruled directly.

Exodus 21: 22, 23 can be translated and understood in 3 ways, and we can't be sure which is the correct way:

1) The Complete Jewish Bible-- "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by the judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life."

I think we can be sure that this last verse means that if the woman dies, then the person who killed her must also die.

2) Beck's translation (The Bible In the Language of Today):

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman so that she delivers her child prematurely but there is no harm to either mother or child, the man should pay the fine her husband puts on him with the help of judges. If any harm follows, give a life for a life."

The critical question is what is meant by the Hebrew words translated as "unborn child dies" or "she delivers her child prematurely"?

The literal Hebrew says, "so that her fruit goes out." It does not specify whether the fetus comes out alive or dead. Some translate it as "a miscarriage"[Revised English Bible; New Revised Standard Version] and if so, it would mean the fetus dies. On the other hand, the Hebrew could mean the fetus is born prematurely yet lives.

3) There is a third possibility that should be noted: The Septuagint (LXX) gives the sense that if the baby is born prematurely and is imperfectly formed, the man will have to pay a fine; whereas if the fetus would have been a perfectly formed baby, then the man must forfeit his life for the loss of the child.

[Dr. Shane]

First, ancient Israel was a theocracy, not a civil government. The modern use of the term civil government is to distinguish it from military and ecclesiastical government.

Second, an abortion ban isn't the only law that doesn't deter crime. Survey cameras have been shown not to deter crime. Stiffer jail sentences for existing crimes have been shown not to deter crime. The death penalty has been shown not to deter crime. Banning guns does not deter crime.

[Dr. Shane]

Exodus 21: 22, 23 can be translated in two ways, and we can't be sure which is the correct way:

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Ex.21 IS the civil government!!

But it is a government of a theocracy, where God ruled directly.Actually, it was God who was responsable for the formulating and the giving of the laws. I think that the history of Israel (pre-kings) indicate that God didn't rule directly. But I know what you're saying. But, does that mean that whatever laws were given thru a theocracy cannot be legitimately employed in a "civil" government because that would violate some higher moral principle?

Exodus 21: 22, 23 can be translated in two ways, and we can't be sure which is the correct way:

1) The Complete Jewish Bible-- "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by the judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life."

I think we can be sure that this last verse means that if the woman dies, then the person who killed her must also die.

2) Beck's translation (The Bible In the Language of Today):

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman so that she delivers her child prematurely but there is no harm to either mother or child, the man should pay the fine her husband puts on him with the help of judges. If any harm follows, give a life for a life."

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: John317

But it is a government of a theocracy' date=' where God ruled directly.Actually, it was God who was responsable for the formulating and the giving of the laws. I think that the history of Israel (pre-kings) indicate that God didn't rule directly. But I know what you're saying. But, does that mean that whatever laws were given thru a theocracy cannot be legitimately employed in a "civil" government because that would violate some higher moral principle?

Exodus 21: 22, 23 can be translated in two ways, and we can't be sure which is the correct way:

1) The Complete Jewish Bible-- "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by the judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life."

I think we can be sure that this last verse means that if the woman dies, then the person who killed her must also die.

2) Beck's translation (The Bible In the Language of Today):

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman so that she delivers her child prematurely but there is no harm to either mother or child, the man should pay the fine her husband puts on him with the help of judges. If any harm follows, give a life for a life." [/quote']

[doug yowell]

Sorry,I didn't mean to include the entire post.

[doug yowell]

While there are differences of opinion regarding the exact translation of Ex. 21 there are obvious conclusions that are undeniable. 1) Whatever "harm" took place was accidental, not intentional (unlike today's unrestricted,legalized abortion practice)! 2) Even the accidental harm to the child rated a judicial restitution. In other words, God attributed to the child an inherent value that demanded legal compensation) (unlike those who argue that the unborn baby has no value)Can anyone truthfully believe that the PURPOSEFUL killing of an unborn child is viewed by God as less of a crime? Or no crime at all?If God destroyed Israel because they shed innocent blood will He excuse another nation because they were "civil"?

[teresaq]

While there are differences of opinion regarding the exact translation of Ex. 21 there are obvious conclusions that are undeniable. 1) Whatever "harm" took place was accidental, not intentional (unlike today's unrestricted,legalized abortion practice)! 2) Even the accidental harm to the child rated a judicial restitution. In other words, God attributed to the child an inherent value that demanded legal compensation) (unlike those who argue that the unborn baby has no value)Can anyone truthfully believe that the PURPOSEFUL killing of an unborn child is viewed by God as less of a crime? Or no crime at all?If God destroyed Israel because they shed innocent blood will He excuse another nation because they were "civil"?

we need to have a specific direction from God regarding intentional abortion and there is no such reference.

[Nic Samojluk]

First: I do not support abortion laws in the US. I do not support abortion-on-demand. Abortion needs to be restricted. Abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy needs to be banned. Abortion needs to have a 48-hour waiting or cool-off period. Mandatory pre-abortion counseling needs to be law. Abortion providers should not be allowed to have any financial interests with firms providing family planning or sexual education.

So the above statistics is not comparing abortion in a nation with an abortion ban with abortion in a nation with legal-but-restricted abortion.

Second, the above statistics do not take into account the sexual revolution that happened in the 1970s and 1980s. The reason for an increase in abortions had a lot to do with more people having sex outside of marriage and a dramatic increase in unwed pregnant women over the same period of time.

Shane,

Thank you for further explaining your position. This does not mean that I am satisfied with your answer. The title of this blog is: “Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?” Most Adventists have been deceived into believing that our church is pro-life, and even the current president of the General Conference publicly declared from the Philippines a few years ago that our church is pro-life with strict guidelines.

How can I believe that our abortion guidelines are strict if all a woman needs to tell her abortionist is that her mental health is being affected, and bingo, another healthy baby is sacrificed on the altar of convenience, this with the blessing of the “Remnant” church. Jesus said that we are supposed to be the salt of the earth. How can we be the salt of the earth if we simply adopt the pro-choice/pro-abortion attitude of the rest of society?

You state that you are happy with the freedom of choosing the abortion alternative up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Do you consider this to be the best alternative for the pregnant woman, for the unborn baby, and for society? One biblical definition for sin is missing the mark. My position is that killing an innocent developing baby is a bad alternative for everybody concerned.

Giving the baby for adoption is a better alternative than killing it. Nine months of inconvenience cannot be compared with the total deprivation of life for the baby. Our duty as a church is to encourage women to choose the best alternative. Refusing to do so is missing the mark, and according to the Bible it is sin.

You did correctly state that abortion is the result of the sexual revolution which took place decades ago. The sexual revolution is a direct rebellion against the Seventh Commandment of God. Sin demands company and one sin leads to another. The violation of the Seventh Commandment leads to the violation of the Sixth, which forbids the killing of innocent human beings.

The church states that it doesn’t condone the use of abortion as a birth control method, and then it turns around and justifies the killing of the innocents under a variety of circumstances, thus encouraging young people to use abortion as a birth control of last resort. You seem to be a little bit stricter than the church, but still adopt the similar policy by allowing abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Can you explain this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Would you also vote for legalizing the use of drugs, for decriminalizing rape, incest, burglary, and sexual abuse of children? If not, tell me why not!

Wheww!!! Now that's a lot.

Drugs: I favor house arrest for non-violent drug crimes. Perhaps even some hefty fines to be garnished out of their wages. Drug crimes involving weapons of deadly force should be punished with hard-labor work camps.

Drugs being illegal does not stop drug addicts from finding and using them. It never will. However it does serve as a deterrent for many to not use them in the first place and not become addicted.

The abortion comparison fails because the pregnant and panicking woman is like the addict already addicted to drugs. If she wants an abortion, she will get one, just like a drug addict will find drugs. When abortion is legal but restricted she will be required to go through some counseling and may be persuaded not to abort the child. No such counseling will take place if she seeks out an illegal abortion.

Rape: Rape needs to stay illegal. There are various degrees of rape. I think a jury should be able to decide the appropriate punishment from house arrest to hard labor.

Incest: While I find it morally objectionable, I think incest between two willing adults is none of the government's business.

Burglary: I favor house arrest and restitution. Burglary is theft with the victim absent. If the victim is present it is robbery.

Sexual Abuse of Children: I feel the same about this as I do rape.

Shane,

Thank you for explaining your position on this issue. Again, I have trouble agreeing with your judgment. You state that banning the use of illicit drugs serves as a deterrent for others from the temptation to use them. If this is true of drug addition, it should be true about addiction towards sexual promiscuity and abortion. You argue that a woman faced with an unwanted abortion is so scared that she will not seek counseling and will find a way of aborting her baby. Isn’t this the case of the one addicted to illicit drugs.

Legalizing an addiction can never serve as a deterrent for said activity. The opposite is true in 99 percent of the cases. Women addicted to sex and to the use of abortion as a birth control method will not seek counseling. What is true about drug addiction is also true about the addiction to sex and abortion. It is the nature of addiction. I think that you need to get some advice from experts on the issue of addiction.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

The “bible does not address abortion.”? I have quoted twice the Exodus 21: 22-23 text where it states that there was a death penalty for the murder of an unborn baby. How can you claim that the Bible does not address the issue of abortion?

Liberal Christian theology actually uses Exodus 21:22-23 to justify abortion. I agree with Nic here. I think Exodus 21:22-23 does require the death penalty for one causing an abortion, and many Hebrew scholars agree with that position.

However that does not justify the civil government passing a ban no abortion. The civil government cannot ban every sin.

Thanks, Shane! I am very happy that we agree on this point! I wish we could pull together on other details of this controversial issue which is affecting society as a cancer.

[Nic Samojluk]

Teresa, You state that the Bible says nothing about abortion. Have you thought about the implications of your analysis? When I was a boy,growing up in the Adventist system, I was taught that the Bible held the answer to EVERY question in life. To this day I still believe that! To conclude that abortion is excluded from that "every" list is a rather drastic turnaround in our contemporary church's confidence in the Bible.But if you are right, it is reasonable to conclude that Omniscient Creator of the Universe,looking down the ages of time, and knowing that His Church would face this divisive moral issue, decided not to get involved!? So much for "doctrine,reproof,correction,and instruction in righteousness",right? So if the Bible says nothing in regards to abortion,what exactly do you base your abortion opinions on? And why should I,as a professing Christian,be willing to accept them?

Thanks for the clear thinking you have exhibited in this posting of yours.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Wheww!!! Now that's a lot.

Drugs: I favor house arrest for non-violent drug crimes. Perhaps even some hefty fines to be garnished out of their wages. Drug crimes involving weapons of deadly force should be punished with hard-labor work camps.

Drugs being illegal does not stop drug addicts from finding and using them. It never will. However it does serve as a deterrent for many to not use them in the first place and not become addicted.

The abortion comparison fails because the pregnant and panicking woman is like the addict already addicted to drugs. If she wants an abortion, she will get one, just like a drug addict will find drugs. When abortion is legal but restricted she will be required to go through some counseling and may be persuaded not to abort the child. No such counseling will take place if she seeks out an illegal abortion.

Rape: Rape needs to stay illegal. There are various degrees of rape. I think a jury should be able to decide the appropriate punishment from house arrest to hard labor.

Incest: While I find it morally objectionable, I think incest between two willing adults is none of the government's business.

Burglary: I favor house arrest and restitution. Burglary is theft with the victim absent. If the victim is present it is robbery.

Sexual Abuse of Children: I feel the same about this as I do rape.

[/quote']

Shane,

Thank you for explaining your position on this issue. Again, I have trouble agreeing with your judgment. You state that banning the use of illicit drugs serves as a deterrent for others from the temptation to use them. If this is true of drug addition, it should be true about addiction towards sexual promiscuity and abortion. You argue that a woman faced with an unwanted abortion is so scared that she will not seek counseling and will find a way of aborting her baby. Isn’t this the case of the one addicted to illicit drugs.

Legalizing an addiction can never serve as a deterrent for said activity. The opposite is true in 99 percent of the cases. Women addicted to sex and to the use of abortion as a birth control method will not seek counseling. What is true about drug addiction is also true about the addiction to sex and abortion. It is the nature of addiction. I think that you need to get some advice from experts on the issue of addiction.

Amen Nic! we don't vote for sin to lessen it, thats ridiculous.

Then to turn around and say to forbid drugs? Thats confusing.

Incest is none of the governments business? Is it God's business?