Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Nic Samojluk]

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

I did, several times. Read the modern translations of Exodus 21:22-24. They indicate that the death penalty was demanded in the case when the unborn baby died and a mometary penalty if it resulted in a premature birth.

I ask you: if a penalty was imposed on an involumntary harm done to an unborn baby, what makes you think that the intentional killing of the unborn is morally acceptable?

Besides, can you give me any Scripture condemning slavery, genocide, or polygamy? Does this mean that we are free to engage in genocide, polygamy, and slavery? Is an argument from silence valid for you?

[Nic Samojluk]

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

Read my response to Teresa!

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

I am not forcing you to agree with me. I have no power to do this. All I am doing is trying to persuade you and others by presenting the evidence from Scripture and common sense. God does not force any one to agree with him either, in spite of the fact that he does have the power to do this.

For me, the Bible is very clear that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings and to either poison them or pull their tiny arms and legs from their bodies. If you want to think otherwise, you are free to do so!

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

If the text is not clear, then common sense should help. We need to choose the translation which agrees with the rest of Scripture. Besides, if there is a doubt, our duty is to err on the side of caution. If you cant see what is behind the bushes, you should investigate before shooting. It might be another human being!

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

True! But we have the civic duty to vote for the protection of all human beings, including the unborn. Now, if you agree that "there is obviously a very strong case for the Bible forbidding abortion," then what is the Adventist Church allowing ELECTIVE abortions to be performed in our hospitals?

[Nic Samojluk]

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?

If Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery, polygamy, and genocide, why do we allow society to regulate those activities? And what right does the Adventist Church have to require African converts to abandon polygamy before we baptize them?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

True, the word "abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, but the accidental killing of the unborn is referred to in Exodus 21:22-23. Now if a penalty was imposed for the unintentional harm done to the unborn, think of what the penalty would have been for the INTENTIONAL harm done to the same. Said intentional harm to the unborn is practiced in our Adventist hospitals. Can you believe this?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

You did read my mind. Excellent post! Keep it up.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Modern Bible translators, including the NIV, use the "premature birth" instead of fruit depart from her, expression. This makes more sense within the biblical injunction against murder and the shedding of innocent blood.

[Nic Samojluk]

hmmmm, this comes from a pamphlet entitled, "A Solemn Appeal relative to Solitary Vice, and the Abuses and Excesses of the Marriage Relation"

i havent been able to find the pamphlet yet so as to be able to read it, but given the subject matter suggested by the title (the entire title was not included in the reference notation, but shortened to read "solemn appeal")

we can readily deduce that james white subject was not abortion

Teresa,

Did you by any chance miss the following from James White’s quotation:

“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.”

If the reference is not to abortion, then what was he talking about: infanticide? James is clearly talking about “murder.” Was it infanticide or abortion? Besides, I also quoted Ellen White who stated that the neglect of the pregnant woman’s health is almost equivalent to the murder of the unborn. Notice that both Ellen and James were using similar arguments.

By the way, the pamphlet is available at the Heritage section of the Loma Linda University library. I got it from there. Are you far away from Loma Linda, California?

Besides, if James was talking about rape, as you allege, he would not used the term "murder."

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Rudywoofs,

You are technically correct. American women do now have the legal right to kill their unborn children, and many Adventist church owned hospitals will honor this request, including ELECTIVE abortions where there is nothing wrong with the unborn baby. The question is: Do said women have the moral right to destroy what God has created? The fact that the baby is defective and is going to die does not entitle us to deprive them of the little life the Lord has granted them. Does it?

You made reference to the spontaneous abortions induced by nature. I have a question for you: Does this mean that we have the right to imitate nature? Nature destroys through earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis. Should we be free to do the same?

By resorting to some extreme cases, aren’t we trying to skirt the main objective of the original blog: to question the role of the church concerning the genocide which has been taking place since 1973 when abortion ws legalized. Do you think that the Adventist Church should be actively engaged in the profitable business of killing unborn babies, even to the point of performing ELECTIVE abortions?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

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

Pkrause,

If what you say is true, then please tell me: Why do we criminalize rape, incest, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? Why do we make an exception and argue in favor of the right to choose to kill innocent unborn children, but condemn the other criminal behavior whose long-term effects are less serious than the total and irreversible deprivation of life for no fault of the victims? A victim of rape can eventually heal and live almost a normal life. Can the victim of abortion have the same privilege? Do you see consistency in criminalizing what has less drastic consequences, while allowing for an open season for the genocide of the unborn? Are we using common sense and fairness in doing this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

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.

I think that you are technically, biblically, and morally correct in your opinion.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Shane,

Your religious position allows for the woman to decide what is right in the case of malformation in the unborn baby. Tell me, please: Why would it be morally right for a woman to destroy an unborn baby which is handicapped in some manner but morally wrong to do this after birth? You probably agree with me that there have been quite a few misdiagnoses in spite of the technical advances in science. Wouldn’t it be more desirable to wait for the baby to be born, and then, if the malformation is not subject to corrective action, to kill the malformed baby after we have verified that the diagnosis was accurate?

[Woody]

Quote:

Wouldn’t it be more desirable to wait for the baby to be born, and then, if the malformation is not subject to corrective action, to kill the malformed baby after we have verified that the diagnosis was accurate?

Why are you supporting killing handicapped children?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Wouldn’t it be more desirable to wait for the baby to be born, and then, if the malformation is not subject to corrective action, to kill the malformed baby after we have verified that the diagnosis was accurate?

Why are you supporting killing handicapped children?

I am not supportimng the killing of handicapped children. Have you not read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" in you high school or college literature classes? If those who are defending the killing of the unborn would use common sense, they would realize that killing the unborn is more insane than killing the handicapped who were allowed to be born. Killing babies, born or unborn, is equivalent to murder. Haven't you read my previous postings?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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. [/quote']

I think that you are technically, biblically, and morally correct in your opinion.

wow!! amazing!!

no, folks go back and read it again. if it is james white, he is talking about a man forcing his wife to have sex when she doesnt wish it.

apart from that this would be saying that the pioneers were not really led by the HS as they claimed but by the mores of their time.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

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.

Rudywoofs,

You are technically correct. American women do now have the legal right to kill their unborn children, and many Adventist church owned hospitals will honor this request, including ELECTIVE abortions where there is nothing wrong with the unborn baby. The question is: Do said women have the moral right to destroy what God has created? The fact that the baby is defective and is going to die does not entitle us to deprive them of the little life the Lord has granted them. Does it?

The parents of the baby that was born without a head ended up letting the organs of that baby be used for transplantation to other sick babies. Was that wrong? The brainstem was still functioning so technically the baby was still alive when the organs were harvested. But a number of other babies lived because that one died.

Elective abortions where there has been rape or incest I would have to agree with the mother's choice. I would not stand in judgement. Elective abortions simply for the purpose of contraception, I am against; however, I will not judge someone who does that.

Quote:

You made reference to the spontaneous abortions induced by nature. I have a question for you: Does this mean that we have the right to imitate nature? Nature destroys through earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis. Should we be free to do the same?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

By resorting to some extreme cases, aren’t we trying to skirt the main objective of the original blog: to question the role of the church concerning the genocide which has been taking place since 1973 when abortion ws legalized. Do you think that the Adventist Church should be actively engaged in the profitable business of killing unborn babies, even to the point of performing ELECTIVE abortions?

Again, I state I would not stand in judgement of someone who elects to have an abortion. You ask about the SDA hospitals/clinics which do elective abortions. My answer to that is that I will not judge them either. They will have to answer to God, and I'm not God. Neither are you.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1,2

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

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.

If what you say is true, then please tell me: Why do we criminalize rape, incest, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? [/quote']are you saying that if there is going to be abortion, then we should allow these atrocities? if not then why bring it up? to manipulate?

Quote:

Why do we make an exception and argue in favor of the right to choose to kill innocent unborn children, but condemn the other criminal behavior whose long-term effects are less serious than the total and irreversible deprivation of life for no fault of the victims?

how do you figure such thinking? an unborn no longer "lives with" the abortion for the rest of its life. in fact solomon said, Ecc 4:2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.

Ecc 4:3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

and we have this,

Quote:

The Lord has often instructed me that many little ones are to be laid away before the time of trouble. {CG 566.1}

Ere long we are to be brought into strait and trying places, and the many children brought into the world will in mercy be taken away before the time of trouble comes.--Manuscript 152, 1899.

Many will be laid away to sleep before the fiery ordeal of the time of trouble shall come upon our world. This is another reason why we should say after our earnest petition; "Nevertheless not my will, but Thine, be done." Luke 22:42. Such a petition will never be registered in heaven as a faithless prayer. {CH 375.2}

since this is true i would think that abortion is much gentler than the earthquake that hit a school in china and killed 9000 recently.

but aside from that how on earth can you, in good conscience, compare the state of death to having to live with the consequences of rape, incest, etc.? that is one of the most calloused and uncaring statements i have ever heard!! and ive heard many!

Quote:

A victim of rape can eventually heal and live almost a normal life. Can the victim of abortion have the same privilege? Do you see consistency in criminalizing what has less drastic consequences, while allowing for an open season for the genocide of the unborn? Are we using common sense and fairness in doing this?

seventh-day adventists believe there is no consciousness in the state of death, do you?

if there is no consciousness how can that precious little soul be suffering anything in having been aborted?

but we do know, just reading various posts on this board, the very real suffering the living suffer year after year, for whatever abuse has happened to them.

but it doesnt stop with just the person involved, it has the ripple effect of involving others who come in contact with them.

so again, i have to ask how you can justify such heartless thinking?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

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 [/quote']

Pkrause,

If what you say is true, then please tell me: Why do we criminalize rape, incest, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? Why do we make an exception and argue in favor of the right to choose to kill innocent unborn children, but condemn the other criminal behavior whose long-term effects are less serious than the total and irreversible deprivation of life for no fault of the victims? A victim of rape can eventually heal and live almost a normal life. Can the victim of abortion have the same privilege? Do you see consistency in criminalizing what has less drastic consequences, while allowing for an open season for the genocide of the unborn? Are we using common sense and fairness in doing this?

Nic did I say I approved of that? No, but all those other deeds you mentioned people made a chose to commit those crimes, because we all have a choice? What the government does I have no control over. All I'm saying is God has given us the choice to do right or wrong has he not? I've said time and time again I'm not for abortion of any kind but I will not tell someone else that they can't choose to abort, that is between them and there Savior period. Just like murdering another idividual, stealing, lying, etc.

pk

[Raphael]

This is but a tiny portion of the whole article in this link http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html. Due to its length it would not look very pretty in here so its beter to visit the site at a click.

"It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument."

[teresaq]

i just love this, and it is so true!!

Quote:

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

and then there are those who study the writings of our church leaders or such, but they still do not search the scriptures.

but back to the topic. this is an interesting thought.

Quote:

In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe.

Quote:

And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

i think i might use different terminology but i respect the thought.

[Nic Samojluk]

wow!! amazing!!

no, folks go back and read it again. if it is james white, he is talking about a man forcing his wife to have sex when she doesnt wish it.

apart from that this would be saying that the pioneers were not really led by the HS as they claimed but by the mores of their time.

This is incredible! Are you equating forced sex with murder? So let me ask you: Is the murder reference to abortion or not? If it is not, what is the murder reference pointing at? Who killed the child? Was it the forced sex, or the abortionist? You seem to be attempting to twist the English language beyond recognition. Is dialogue possible under these circumstances?

[Nic Samojluk]

The parents of the baby that was born without a head ended up letting the organs of that baby be used for transplantation to other sick babies. Was that wrong? The brainstem was still functioning so technically the baby was still alive when the organs were harvested. But a number of other babies lived because that one died.

Rudywoofs,

Since you are using an extreme case in order to justify abortion, then I will do likewise: Are you saying that partial abortion is morally justifiable because a healthy and perfectly formed baby could be used to save several babies doomed to die. Is this a good reason for the SDA Church to engage in the ELECTIVE abortion business? Does this justify the fifty million of babies which perished since abortion was legalized? Consider now the following:

You have a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She decides that donating the organs of her unborn baby is a good idea, because the organs can be used to save the life of several babies, and she can thus solve the problem of her unwanted pregnancy.

The life of one baby is sacrificed and several babies are given the gift of life. All it takes is a partial birth abortion. The unborn baby is killed while the baby is in the process of being born, and the head is crushed before it is out of the birth canal, which technically means that the baby was death at arrival.

The organs are removed and transplanted to those in need. Are you comfortable with this moral decision? Is it fair and just to kill one human being without the consent of the donor in order to save the lives of others? Would you have wished to have been such an unwilling donor? Would this have been fair? Do you wish this had been done to one of your children, if you have any?

For the organs to be in optimum condition for transplantation, they must be removed while the donor baby is still alive. Are you happy with the practice of removing organs from a baby while he/she is still breathing? Did you read James Walters’ book “What is a Person”? His solution is to redefine death so that organs can harvested while a baby is still alive and breathing. Do you accept this moral solution? I must be old fashioned, but I consider this to be the moral equivalent to murder.

[Nic Samojluk]

are you saying that if there is going to be abortion, then we should allow these atrocities? if not then why bring it up? to manipulate?