Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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.

I have the impression that most modern translators are chooding the premature birth option. This makes sense to me, because it agrees with the Decalogue and with the prohibition of shedding the blood of innocent human beings.

[Dr. Shane]

You state that you are happy with the freedom of choosing the abortion alternative up to 12 weeks of pregnancy...

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?

First, I believe life begins at conception and have expressed that on many occasions. I believe the only justifiable abortion is when it is performed to save the mother's life. Self-defense is a justifiable reason to murder.

Second, I do not see that the church's position on abortion condones any abortions. It simply allows the individual believer the right to make that decision without fearing church discipline in various circumstances. That is a decision left between the believer and God, in those circumstances. The church does condemn abortions for means of birth control and convenience. In the US, more than 90% of abortions that take place are for one of those two reasons. So the church's position condemns over 90% of abortions in the US.

Third, the reason I support a 12 week limit on abortion is simply because that law is part of a group of restrictions that works to discourage abortions. Allow abortions up to 12 weeks prevents an abortion black market from existing like what exists in Mexico, Kenya and other such countries.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions performed we will do what works. Keeping abortion and implementing restrictions on it works. Banning abortions doesn't work. I want to reduce abortions so I support what works to do that.

[Dr. Shane]

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.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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?

These guidelines were approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council session in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 12, 1992.

Abortion

A brief Seventh-day Adventist perspective

Abortion is never an act of little moral consequence. The dual responsibility of protecting prenatal human life while also preserving a woman's freedom of choice is not easy.

What position does the Seventh-day Adventist Church take on this issue?

Adventists do not condone abortions for birth control, gender selection or convenience. And we do not believe those with a religious or ethical objection to abortions should have to participate in them.

But when a woman faces exceptional circumstances of serious moral or medical dilemmas, she has the final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate.

The church does not serve as a conscience for individuals, but it does provide moral guidance. It:

1. Supports women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies

2. Creates a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with abortion

3. Provides sex education

4. Emphasises responsibility for family planning

5. Encourages fathers to participate responsibly in the parenting of their children

6. Assists in alleviating the social, economic and psychological factors that add to abortion

Adventists encourage people to make decisions about prenatal

http://adventist.org.au/about_adventists/perspectives_on_social_issues/abortion

This is the OFFICIAL SDA position on abortion. Whet individuals say and do may be different.

Guidelines on Abortion

Many contemporary societies have faced conflict over the morality of abortion.* Such conflict also has affected large numbers within Christianity who want to accept responsibility for the protection of prenatal human life while also preserving the personal liberty of women. The need for guidelines has become evident, as the Church attempts to follow scripture, and to provide moral guidance while respecting individual conscience. Seventh-day Adventists want to relate to the question of abortion in ways that reveal faith in God as the Creator and Sustainer of all life and in ways that reflect Christian responsibility and freedom. Though honest differences on the question of abortion exist among Seventh-day Adventists, the following represents an attempt to provide guidelines on a number of principles and issues. The guidelines are based on broad biblical principles that are presented for study at the end of the document.**

1) Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life. However, decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world. Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical, tangible ways the Church as a supportive community should express its commitment to the value of human life. These ways should include:

a. strengthening family relationships

b. educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality

c. emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for family planning

d. calling both to be responsible for the consequences of behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles

e. creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with abortion

f. offering support and assistance to women who choose to complete crisis pregnancies

g. encouraging and assisting fathers to participate responsibly in the parenting of their children.

The Church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that add to abortion and to care redemptively for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.

4) The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

5) Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and its laws. They make their choices according to scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to abortion should not be required to participate in the performance of abortions.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to abortion in light of the teaching of scripture.

Principles for a Christian View of Life

Introduction

"Now this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3, NIV). In Christ is the promise of eternal life; but since human life is mortal, humans are confronted with difficult issues regarding life and death. The following principles refer to the whole person (body, soul, and spirit), an indivisible whole (Genesis 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Life: Our valuable gift from God

1) God is the Source, Giver, and Sustainer of all life (Acts 17:25,28; Job 33:4; Genesis 1:30, 2:7; Psalm 36:9; John 1:3,4).

2) Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Romans 3:23; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 3:2; John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18,19).

3) God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God's creation and the object of His redeeming love (Romans 5:6,8; Ephesians 2:2-6; 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 3:4,5; Matthew 5:43-48; Ephesians 2:4-9; John 1:3, 10:10).

Life: Our response to God's gift

4) Valuable as it is, human life is not the only or ultimate concern. Self-sacrifice in devotion to God and His principles may take precedence over life itself (Revelation 12:11; 1 Corinthians 13).

5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction (Exodus 20:13; Revelation 21:8; Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 24:16; Proverbs 6:16,17; Jeremiah 7:3-34; Micah 6:7; Genesis 9:5,6).

6) God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed (Psalm 82:3,4; James 1:27; Micah 6:8; Acts 20:35; Proverbs 24:11,12; Luke 1:52-54).

7) Christian love (agape) is the costly dedication of our lives to enhancing the lives of others. Love also respects personal dignity and does not condone the oppression of one person to support the abusive behavior of another (Matthew 16:21; Philippians 2:1-11; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:8-11; Matthew 22:39; John 18:22,23; John 13:34).

8) The believing community is called to demonstrate Christian love in tangible, practical, and substantive ways. God calls us to restore gently the broken (Galatians 6:1,2; 1 John 3:17,18; Matthew 1:23; Philippians 2:1-11; John 8:2-11; Romans 8:1-14; Matthew 7:1,2, 12:20; Isaiah 40:42, 62:2-4).

Life: Our right and responsibility to decide

9) God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).

10) God calls each of us individually to moral decision making and to search the scriptures for the biblical principles underlying such choices (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 7:13-25).

11) Decisions about human life from its beginning to its end are best made within the context of healthy family relationships with the support of the faith community (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 5,6).

12) Human decisions should always be centered in seeking the will of God (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 6:6; Luke 22:42).

*Abortion, as understood in these guidelines, is defined as any action aimed at the termination of a pregnancy already established. This is distinguished from contraception, which is intended to prevent a pregnancy. The focus of the document is on abortion.

**The fundamental perspective of these guidelines is taken from a broad study of scripture as shown in the "Principles for a Christian View of Human Life" included at the end of this document.

_______________

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: 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?

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

please provide scripture on abortion and not the tradition of man. thank you.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'd like to see some scripture on abortion too.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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, ...”

everytime i came across this in my bible reading i never understood it to mean the life of the unborn, but the life of the woman. i still understand it to mean the life of the woman.

the fine was for the life of the unborn.

now if you understand it to mean differently so be it, but do not try to force me to accept your interpretation.

[Dr. Shane]

The passage is not clear about whose life it is addressing. It is also not clear on the issue of the the baby being born stillborn or premature. The word used simply means the baby comes out and does not say if the baby comes out dead or alive.

[Dr. Shane]

There is obviously a very strong case for the Bible forbidding abortion. That is why so many Bible-believing, Christian fundamentalists are opposed to abortion. However just because something is sin, doesn't mean we want the civil government banning it. We do not have a ecclesiastical government nor do we want such a union of church and state.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

actually it is not a straw man argument. it is based on knowing the difference between how God operates and how satan operates, a subject in itself. if we do not have this clear in our minds we can end up with satans character in the service of God.

the bibles only reference to the taking of life is that outside of the womb.

God never, through Jesus and later the apostles, addressed abortion. it wasnt until the church was drifting from the Lord and apostatizing that homosexuality, and abortion started being addressed.

the bibles directions for the unborn were specifically for its health and spiritual well-being. but all other directions and laws apply to the born,

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I am glad you cited Matthew 25 because in it there is this statement: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Can you think about any group of human being more deserving of the “the least” label than the unborn?

if Jesus was referring to, and addressing, the born, and their fitness for heaven,

why would i manipulate the scripture to divert peoples attention from that?

[Steve Billiter]

Pam, i don't think abortion is mentioned in the Bible. Does God really need to just tell us that like we have no understanding? He has given us intelligence to reason with. There is this:

Jer 2:33 Why trim you your way to seek love? therefore have you also taught the wicked ones your ways.

Jer 2:34 Also in your skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but on all these.

Could be. But it probably has to do with sacrificing children, as does this:

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that uses divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

[Steve Billiter]

Exo 21:22 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 on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Since this is accidental, it seems to me that purposeful abortion is far worse. The very idea that abortion is not murder and sin is totally absurd.

God has given us our life. To destroy that life has to be sin.

[Steve Billiter]

The passage is not clear about whose life it is addressing. It is also not clear on the issue of the the baby being born stillborn or premature. The word used simply means the baby comes out and does not say if the baby comes out dead or alive.

The passage is very clear.

Exo 21:22 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 on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

If there is no fruit there is no life. The baby is dead. "No mischief follow" means the woman was not seriously hurt or killed. The punishment was for the loss of the baby.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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.

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]

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Steve, I'm not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread. I'm probably one of very few on the board who believes that a woman has the right to choose abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest. I also believe that spontaneous abortions are not caused by the devil, but are the body's own way of ridding itself of problematic fetuses or embryos. (Have you ever seen a full term baby born with no head? I have. It's not a pretty sight.) And for the record, I do not believe that the mating of a sperm and egg equals a baby...it's a zygote.

I believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't do it, but I also refuse to judge a woman who has.

[phkrause]

Steve, I'm not interested in scripture that doesn't address abortion in this thread. I'm probably one of very few on the board who believes that a woman has the right to choose abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest. I also believe that spontaneous abortions are not caused by the devil, but are the body's own way of ridding itself of problematic fetuses or embryos. (Have you ever seen a full term baby born with no head? I have. It's not a pretty sight.) And for the record, I do not believe that the mating of a sperm and egg equals a baby...it's a zygote.

I believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't do it, but I also refuse to judge a woman who has.

Good post rudywoofs. And to add to that. God created us with the ability to choose. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be in this mess, but we are because the first couple chose to eat from the forbidden tree. Those that choose to have an abortion will deal with there heavenly father, its there choice not anyone else's.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

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

how does he force it on her? by rape.

I think he was saying the abortion was induced and forced on the woman - not sex. The issue in that passage isn't rape.

This reflects feminist thought of the time. Susan B. Anthony was against legalized abortion because she feared that men would force their wives to have abortions.

[Dr. Shane]

I'm probably one of very few on the board who believes that a woman has the right to choose abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest.

I hold two positions on abortion. I hold a religious position about how I believe God wants us to act. I also hold a political position on how I think it best for the civil government to deal with abortion.

My religious position is that abortion is always acceptable when the mother's life is at risk. No exceptions ever. When the mother has become pregnant due to incest or rape I do believe the woman has to decide what God would have her to do. I don't see there is a one-answer-fits-all solution. When the fetus is diagnosed with birth defects I believe the woman has to decide what God would have her do. I don't see a one-answer-fits-all solution there either. I believe abortion is always sin when it is done as a means of birth control, convenience or to choose the sex of the child. No exceptions ever.

My civil government position is that abortion should be banned after 12 weeks of pregnancy. There should be a 48-hour waiting or cool-off period. There should be mandatory pre-abortion counseling not provided by the abortion provider. No family planning or sexual education services should be allowed in public schools or funded with public funds if the organization providing the services has a financial interest with an abortion provider.

[Nic Samojluk]

... Second, an abortion ban isn't the only law that doesn't deter crime....

Is this a good reason for our church to engage in this criminal behavior? Some of our hospitals are offering abortion services to their clients. Is killing innocent babies something that a church should be engaged in?

On one hand we try to prolong the life of smokers, while at the same time we deprive of tne entire life span of unborn babies. In one room of the same hospital our physicians are saving lives while in another others are killing human beings. Does this make sense? Should not our church divorce itself from this bloody business?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: John317

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

The whole interpretation comes down to the meaning of the Hebrew word yatsa'.

Strongs says this:

Quote:

a primitive root; to go (causatively, bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proxim.:

KJV--X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart(-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.

It seems to mean "come out". That would cause one to think premature birth or even just to cause the woman to go into labor. The same word is used in Ex. 28:35 regarding Aaron leaving the Most Holy Place. It is also in Lev. 4:12 regarding taking a bull outside of the camp. Also in Lev. 8:33, 10:7, 14.:45, Num. 1:1, 20 and throughout the Old Testement. It really seems to just mean moving from one spot to another.

To claim the verse implies the baby comes out dead I think places something in the text that is not there. The Hebrew word literally means the baby comes out.

Your logical reasoning makes a lot of sense to me, and it agrees with the rest of the Bible concerning the just treatment of the innocent and the shedding of human blood.

[Nic Samojluk]

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"?

Great post! If the unintentional harm done to an unborn baby deserved retribution, how can the Adventist church engage in the intentional killing of innocent babies? And we are not talking about any Christian Church, but the one who claims to be the "Remnant" Church of God with the "last message for a perishing world." This is so ackward a behavior for a church like this I fail to find the right words to describe the aversion I feel inside.

[Nic Samojluk]

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

In Exodus 21 we have the record of how an unintentional harm done to a baby required retribution and you are asking for a special revelation regarding the intentional killing of innocent unborn babies?

[Nic Samojluk]

First, I believe life begins at conception and have expressed that on many occasions. I believe the only justifiable abortion is when it is performed to save the mother's life. Self-defense is a justifiable reason to murder.

Second, I do not see that the church's position on abortion condones any abortions. It simply allows the individual believer the right to make that decision without fearing church discipline in various circumstances. That is a decision left between the believer and God, in those circumstances. The church does condemn abortions for means of birth control and convenience. In the US, more than 90% of abortions that take place are for one of those two reasons. So the church's position condemns over 90% of abortions in the US.

Third, the reason I support a 12 week limit on abortion is simply because that law is part of a group of restrictions that works to discourage abortions. Allow abortions up to 12 weeks prevents an abortion black market from existing like what exists in Mexico, Kenya and other such countries.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions performed we will do what works. Keeping abortion and implementing restrictions on it works. Banning abortions doesn't work. I want to reduce abortions so I support what works to do that.

Shane,

I think that you are 100 percent correct on your first point. If both the mother and the baby are doomed to die, the true pro-life position should be to save at least one life instead of loosing both.

Now let’s analyze your second one: Our Adventist Church Does not condemn killing unborn babies if they are the result of incest, rape, if there is evidence of malformation, when the pregnant female is a minor, when the unwanted pregnancy is affecting the mental health of the woman, and it does not condemn the elective abortions performed by our hospitals. And you claim that our church condemns 90 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S.? Where is the 90 percent?

It is true that our “Guidelines in Abortion” state that the church “doesn’t condone the use of abortion as a birth control method.” My question to you is: What good is it to make such a claim if the church allows our hospitals to provide elective abortions to their patients and to set their own guidelines on abortion? Lofty statements are cheap if we do the opposite of what those statements claim. From this I conclude that your argument that the “the church's position condemns over 90% of abortions in the US” is worthless! Can we agree on this?

Regarding your third point, we have debated this more than once. I believe that we need to consider the source of your statistics. I do not rely on statistics on cancer if the source is the tobacco manufacturers. Neither do I rely on abortions statistics if they come from those engaged in the abortion industry. I lost my trust in the defenders of abortion back in the 1070’s when they inflated the real figures tenfold in order to secure the legalization of abortion.

[Nic Samojluk]

Banning drugs serves as a deterrent to those that have never used them. It prevents them from starting. It does not serve as a deterrent for those already addicted to them.

The same is true about abortion. The knowledge that abortion is legal and morally accepted by society encourages young and old to engage in promiscuos sexual activity which is the main root cause of unwanted babies. People tend to use abortion as a last resort of birth control. This is so patently clear to me that I can't imagine how you fails to see it!

[Nic Samojluk]

Steve,

Thank you for posting the Adventist abortion guidelines for everybody to see what they include. Here are some comments of mine.

1. Did you know that these guidelines are not prescriptive? The Adventist institutions were granted the freedom to create their own guidelines. This is why it was reported several years ago in our “Ministry” magazine that five of our hospitals were offering ELECTIVE abortions to their patients. My judgment is that this fact nullifies all the magnificent talk contained in those guidelines. Talk is cheap. We need to rather listen to our walk.

2. The guidelines state: “The dual responsibility of protecting prenatal human life while also preserving a woman's freedom of choice is not easy.” My response is: Instead of saying that this is difficult, we should rather say that it is IMPOSSIBLE.” If you grant women the freedom to choose when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, you are not protecting the unborn. You are removing society’s protection from the unborn.

3. They state: “Adventists do not condone abortions for birth control, gender selection or convenience.” My answer is: These are empty words because the church is allowing our hospitals to perform abortions and even ELECTIVE abortions where there is nothing wrong with the baby. In one hospital room our physicians are saving one baby from a sure death and in another one an innocent and healthy unborn baby is dismembered or poisoned.

4. They state: “Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.” I respond: Do you thank that offering ELECTIVE abortion in our hospitals is a serious reason for killing healthy babies?

5. The guidelines also state: “God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God's creation.” My question is: Then why do we allow our hospitals to destroy what God has created?

6. They state: “God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.” My answer: If God holds humanity accountable for the destruction of human life, should not the church hold accountable those Adventist hospitals who do engage in the destruction of innocent human beings?

7. They state: “God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.” My answer: How come the church is not likewise concerned? I did send pro-life donations both my church and the General Conference. My money was returned each time with the following note: “The church does not have a pro-life program.”

8. They also state: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.” My question is: If God granted us the “freedom of choice” in the matter of killing the innocent, and if Jesus died to restore said freedom, should we not conclude that Jesus also died to grant us the freedom to rape, steal, and sexually abuse little children? We are free to shoot at the president, but if we do so we may and in jail or the electric chair.