Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

this is a faulty assumption' date=' since abortion, whether legal or not, was being addressed for a "minute", then dropped in light of ellen whites statements on the criminality of bringing children into the world unless under certain defined circumstances.[/quote']

Teresa, Why would SDA pioneers drop their condemnation of abortion because of EGW's statements on the criminality of bringing children into the world? What does the one have to do with the other? Isn't this a non sequitur?

first i have not seen any comments by our pioneers on abortion, right or wrong.

ellen white said it was criminal to bring children into the world under various circumstances, poverty being one. 2/3rds of the world do not have enough to eat with children dying of starvation every minute.

so what is it you dont understand?

[doug yowell]

Loma Linda University was granted the right to draft our “Guidelines on Abortion,” which is equivalent to asking the tobacco company to write the policy on the sale of tobacco My understanding is that when the Annual Council takes a vote, the document becomes the official voice of the church. Am I wrong on this? Evidently, you rely on how the “editors of the ‘official’ Adventist publication” have described the action of the church, while I am relying on the actual vote of the Annual Council. It seems to me that the actual vote of the Annual Council bears more authority than the opinion of the editors of Adventist publications.

The attempt to distinguish between “guidelines” and “policy” is a question of semantics.

Nic, I'm still trying to figure out how to isolate individual questions for comment when I post so try to bear (not bare)with me. 1) I think a better analogy for describing LLU is more like Stater Bros. being asked to write a policy on tobacco sales.2) Semantics is critical in many PR situations. The former Soviet Union, when accused of being anti-religious, would always point to the religious liberty provisions in their constitution,while at the same time, killing and imprisoning tens of thousands of their citizens for their religious beliefs.It is the semantics that often (intentionally) creates false illusions and much confusion,as the history of abortion in Adventism demonstrates. But, in this case, there is an "official" difference between the two,as the editors of the Review pointed out.You yourself have noted that the guidelines are really suggestions!! But,in fact,if you read the whole document carefully you'll quickly discover that there are no suggestions to be found.Instead you'll find descriptions of the "delemna" and a disclaimer of the church's participation in any individual's decision i.e. you're on your own! 3)Yes, I think you are wrong in understanding the authority of the Annual Council. They are a select group that has no authority to impose policy or determine official positions. That can only be done by vote of the General Conference (world church in session).This is one reason why "womens ordination" has not become an official SDA position.I might be missing something here and I'm open to correction but I think that's pretty accurate. 4) It's verrrry doubtful that the editors of the Review were only giving their opinions. It's the OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and they were probably told exactly what to print. Remember, they said it was the official church minutes.And I wouldn't want to accuse them of disemanating false information about official church policies.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

first i have not seen any comments by our pioneers on abortion, right or wrong.

ellen white said it was criminal to bring children into the world under various circumstances, poverty being one. 2/3rds of the world do not have enough to eat with children dying of starvation every minute.

so what is it you dont understand?

My bad, Teresa. I thought you had read the pioneers statements. I believe they've been posted on this thread several times. If you want I can post them up again for you or I can direct you to where you can find them.Do you live near a White Estate,or Adventist Heritage Room? You're,obviously, good on the computer so maybe there's a way to view that info without having to change out of your PJ's. Anyway, read their editorials and I think you'll be able to understand why I asked the question.

[karl]

Does an unborn baby fall within Christ's definition of "the least of these." ???

No I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm wondering whether anyone here is claiming that unborn babies aren't babies.

[teresaq]

no, the issue is the validity of nics paper which has a link buried somewhere here.

[teresaq]

no, the issue is the validity of nics paper which has a link buried somewhere here.

[Nic Samojluk]

The attempt to distinguish between “guidelines” and “policy” is a question of semantics.

Nic, I'm still trying to figure out how to isolate individual questions for comment when I post so try to bear (not bare)with me. 1) I think a better analogy for describing LLU is more like Stater Bros. being asked to write a policy on tobacco sales.2) Semantics is critical in many PR situations. The former Soviet Union, when accused of being anti-religious, would always point to the religious liberty provisions in their constitution,while at the same time, killing and imprisoning tens of thousands of their citizens for their religious beliefs.It is the semantics that often (intentionally) creates false illusions and much confusion,as the history of abortion in Adventism demonstrates. But, in this case, there is an "official" difference between the two,as the editors of the Review pointed out.You yourself have noted that the guidelines are really suggestions!! But,in fact,if you read the whole document carefully you'll quickly discover that there are no suggestions to be found.Instead you'll find descriptions of the "delemna" and a disclaimer of the church's participation in any individual's decision i.e. you're on your own! 3)Yes, I think you are wrong in understanding the authority of the Annual Council. They are a select group that has no authority to impose policy or determine official positions. That can only be done by vote of the General Conference (world church in session).This is one reason why "womens ordination" has not become an official SDA position.I might be missing something here and I'm open to correction but I think that's pretty accurate. 4) It's verrrry doubtful that the editors of the Review were only giving their opinions. It's the OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and they were probably told exactly what to print. Remember, they said it was the official church minutes.And I wouldn't want to accuse them of disemanating false information about official church policies.

Doug,

I am glad that we do agree on the basic issue in dispute in this blog: That there has been a major shift in our Adventist attitude towards abortion, which is the heart of my doctoral dissertation.

The evidence of overwhelming in support of the premise that the leading Adventist pioneers were decidedly opposed to the practice of abortion, while the leading Adventists today teach and practice the exact opposite. Our pioneers labeled the killing of the unborn as plain “murder” while we call this today as women’s right to choose, and our “Guidelines on Abortion” claim that Jesus died to protect this right to choose.

My counter argument is: Yes, we have the right to sin, but when we do this, we are doing not God’s will, but the will of the one who had been a “murderer from the beginning.” One biblical definition for sin is: “Missing the mark.” Killing an innocent unborn child is not the best option. If a pregnant female cannot raise the child she is carrying, she has a better option: She can give the baby for adoption. This alternative is morally much more desirable than killing an innocent human being.

When a woman chooses to have her unborn child killed, she is definitely sinning, and unless she repents of her sin, she will never experience the blessing of forgiveness. My question is: How can a woman who had chosen to kill her unborn baby repent if the church is telling her that she had done no wrong? How can she?

In this, the church is doing not God’s will, but the will of the enemy of God. Jesus said: “I have come that you may have life, and have it more abundantly.” This includes the unborn. How can the unborn enjoy the abundant life if we deprive the baby of the most precious gift Jesus came to grant every human being? Jesus also stated: “Let the children come to me.” How can they come if we dismember their tiny bodies or crush their little brain?

By the way, the way of isolating your comments from the material someone else has posted is by using the HTML equivalent to the “...” quotation marks. Make sure someone else’s comments are preceded by the term "quote" enclosed within brackets [] and followed by the word "quote" enclosed by the same brackets but with a forward slash "/" before the "quote" word. Do not use quotation marks around the term "quote."

Now, regarding your argument that the “Guidelines on Abortion” do not represent the official position of the church, you may be right or you may be wrong. You believe that what is published in the Adventist Review represents the official position of the church. In one sense, you are right, and in another you are wrong.

It is true that the magazine is an official organ of the church, but there is no vote taken for every item which is published in the paper. Contrast this with the “Guidelines on Abortion” for which the Autumn Council took a vote before it was published. It is true that a vote taken when the General Conference is in session has greater authority than the decisions of the Autumn Council, but to argue that what the Autumn Council decides is not official is in error, I believe.

If the “Guidelines on Abortion” is not an official pronouncement of the church, then tell me: Why is the document still being published by the church? And do not forget that hose guidelines were created in response the insistent demand in our publications for an official pronouncement by the church on the issue of abortion.

The comments in our “Ministry” magazine were ten to one dealing with the abortion issue in contrast with all other issues before the publication of our guidelines. Following said publication, the editor of “Ministry” announced that they would no longer publish any comments about abortion. What followed was a long silence on this issue, a silence which is even present today. The publication of those guidelines killed the Adventist discussion of the abortion controversy. How can you argue that we should ignore said document?

Nevertheless, yesterday, as I was reviewing my doctoral dissertation, I deleted the term “official” from the “Revised” version of the document. I don’t want this side issue to blind us to the fact that my main premise stands firm in spite of all the semantics we have built around the topic of abortion: The evidence suggesting that the Adventist Church has veered from the pro-life attitude exhibited by our pioneers is so patent and overwhelming that no side issue can obscure this crystal clear truth.

My contention is that, if we are willing to alter the true meaning of the Sixth Commandment, then we have no moral right to condemn the Catholic Church for altering the original meaning of the Sabbath Commandment either. If we claim that Rome has apostatized on the issue of the correct day of worship, then we have done the same on the issue of abortion. And remember that worshipping on the wrong day of the week did not result in the extermination of 50 million of innocent victims.

[Nic Samojluk]

Does an unborn baby qualify as "the least of these?"

Karl,

Excellent question! The answer is YES. I suggest that you read Chapter IV of my doctoral dissertation entitled "THE LEAST OF THESE." Here is the link: http://letsfocusonlife.com/?page_id=727 .

[teresaq]

why on earth do you all center your whole life around the unborn when Christ was clearly concerned with the born and their physical and spiritual needs?

feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, house the homeless, etc and etc.

seems like this whole line of thought is leading us into opposition to Christ Himself, setting up a different gospel.

[karl]

why on earth do you all center your whole life around the unborn when Christ was clearly concerned with the born and their physical and spiritual needs?

feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, house the homeless, etc and etc.

Whatever rights you deny to any segment of the population, you ultimately deny to yourself.

Jesus put it another way: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."

I don't think we should center our whole lives around the unborn, but we should give them no less of our concern than we would any other group you have mentioned above.

[Nic Samojluk]

No I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm wondering whether anyone here is claiming that unborn babies aren't babies.

Karl,

By "here" you probably mean those who are actively participating in this blog. If that is what you mean, then those who read this thread on a regular basis should speak for themselves. Nevertheless, if by any chance you have Adventists in general in mind, then my answer would be “YES INDEED.”

There are several leading Adventists who believe that the unborn have no intrinsic right to life. One of them is John Stevens, Jr. Read the article I published a few years ago entitled "Former SDA Religious Liberty Leader Still Defends Abortion." Here is the link for it: http://sdaforum.com/page67.html .

Another one is Kevin D. Paulson, who defends the practice of abortion. He sent me a copy of an article he wrote some time ago, which I published in one of my web sites. The title is “Seventh-day Adventists and the Abortion Question.” The link is: http://sdaforum.com/page247.html .

Another influential Adventist who defends similar views is Sean Pitman. Some years ago I wrote a parable entitled “Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind” which generated a long and protracted exchange of comments between him and myself. Here is the link in case you have interest and the time to wade through the debate material: http://sdaforum.com/page94.html

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: karl

No I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm wondering whether anyone here is claiming that unborn babies aren't babies.

Karl,

By "here" you probably mean those who are actively participating in this blog. If that is what you mean, then those who read this thread on a regular basis should speak for themselves. Nevertheless, if by any chance you have Adventists in general in mind, then my answer would be “YES INDEED.”

There are several leading Adventists who believe that the unborn have no intrinsic right to life. One of them is John Stevens, Jr. Read the article I published a few years ago entitled "Former SDA Religious Liberty Leader Still Defends Abortion." Here is the link for it: http://sdaforum.com/page67.html .

Another one is Kevin D. Paulson, who defends the practice of abortion. He sent me a copy of an article he wrote some time ago, which I published in one of my web sites. The title is “Seventh-day Adventists and the Abortion Question.” The link is: http://sdaforum.com/page247.html .

Another influential Adventist who defends similar views is Sean Pitman. Some years ago I wrote a parable entitled “Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind” which generated a long and protracted exchange of comments between him and myself. Here is the link in case you have interest and the time to wade through the debate material: http://sdaforum.com/page94.html

Sorry but I haven't read any post that claims that unborn babies are not babies. That anyone thinks that abortion is right. I have indicated that we are born with the right to choice. I am not for abortion, do not advocate it. But will not take someones right to choose away from them. This is a decestion between the individual and God. He will judge them for there reason to commit this act. I am for choice and I believe that so is God from what I can tell.

pk

[doug yowell]

Does an unborn baby fall within Christ's definition of "the least of these." ???

No I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm wondering whether anyone here is claiming that unborn babies aren't babies.

Karl, quick, read the first 10 pages of this thread and report back,PRONTO!!

[Guest]

lol

[Nic Samojluk]

first i have not seen any comments by our pioneers on abortion, right or wrong.

ellen white said it was criminal to bring children into the world under various circumstances, poverty being one. 2/3rds of the world do not have enough to eat with children dying of starvation every minute.

so what is it you dont understand?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Karl,

By "here" you probably mean those who are actively participating in this blog. If that is what you mean, then those who read this thread on a regular basis should speak for themselves. Nevertheless, if by any chance you have Adventists in general in mind, then my answer would be “YES INDEED.”

There are several leading Adventists who believe that the unborn have no intrinsic right to life. One of them is John Stevens, Jr. Read the article I published a few years ago entitled "Former SDA Religious Liberty Leader Still Defends Abortion." Here is the link for it: http://sdaforum.com/page67.html .

Another one is Kevin D. Paulson, who defends the practice of abortion. He sent me a copy of an article he wrote some time ago, which I published in one of my web sites. The title is “Seventh-day Adventists and the Abortion Question.” The link is: http://sdaforum.com/page247.html .

Another influential Adventist who defends similar views is Sean Pitman. Some years ago I wrote a parable entitled “Jumping Through the Loop in the Kingdom of the Blind” which generated a long and protracted exchange of comments between him and myself. Here is the link in case you have interest and the time to wade through the debate material: http://sdaforum.com/page94.html

[/quote']

Sorry but I haven't read any post that claims that unborn babies are not babies. That anyone thinks that abortion is right. I have indicated that we are born with the right to choice. I am not for abortion, do not advocate it. But will not take someones right to choose away from them. This is a decestion between the individual and God. He will judge them for there reason to commit this act. I am for choice and I believe that so is God from what I can tell.

pk

PK, all this heated discussion about unborn babies and choice and everything is becoming more and more confusing to me. I'm going to give myself a timeout, smoke some gange, and have me a couple of beers until this issue becomes more understandable.Who knows,since my nerves are a little edgey from trying to figure it all out maybe I'll take up smoking again? I hope nobody minds,I won't be gone long.Hold that thought.And thanks for your understanding.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

why on earth do you all center your whole life around the unborn when Christ was clearly concerned with the born and their physical and spiritual needs?

feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, house the homeless, etc and etc.

Whatever rights you deny to any segment of the population, you ultimately deny to yourself.

Jesus put it another way: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me."

I don't think we should center our whole lives around the unborn, but we should give them no less of our concern than we would any other group you have mentioned above.

Thanks for reminding us that Jesus was extremely concerned about "the least of these." Can any group of human beings be more deserving of "the least" label than the unborn?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Does an unborn baby fall within Christ's definition of "the least of these." ???

No I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm wondering whether anyone here is claiming that unborn babies aren't babies.

Karl, quick, read the first 10 pages of this thread and report back,PRONTO!!

Yes, I see it, Doug.

Sickening.

JN Andrews said it very well - thank you for posting this quote, Nic:

"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."

I think pro-choicers truly believe that abortion is not murder - that the unborn are some form of subhuman beings - kinda like slaves were considered by some slave traders and owners.

These same pro-choicers would have an absolute cow if someone started aborting baby seals or otters or some other cute little creature. They'd be first in line demanding that the perpetrators be put in jail!

Remember the judgement coming up soon? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And the converse is also true - If ye did it NOT to the least of these ye did it not to me. I wonder if being an accessory to the murder of Christ by looking the other way or by voting for abortion "rights" qualifies as righteousness?

No, I don't wonder, I know. It's hard for me to believe there are so many who refuse to defend the lives of these helpless babies.

Eight years ago, my wife and I adopted a little girl from China. She has been such a blessing to us that the thought she could have been aborted (it's legal over there) just makes us shudder. We are so glad that her parents were more moral than the US Supreme Court.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Sorry but I haven't read any post that claims that unborn babies are not babies. That anyone thinks that abortion is right. I have indicated that we are born with the right to choice. I am not for abortion, do not advocate it. But will not take someones right to choose away from them. This is a decestion between the individual and God. He will judge them for there reason to commit this act. I am for choice and I believe that so is God from what I can tell.pk

I agree, pk.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Sorry but I haven't read any post that claims that unborn babies are not babies. That anyone thinks that abortion is right. I have indicated that we are born with the right to choice. I am not for abortion, do not advocate it. But will not take someones right to choose away from them. This is a decestion between the individual and God. He will judge them for there reason to commit this act. I am for choice and I believe that so is God from what I can tell.

pk [/quote']

Pkrause,

Did you read the arguments of Stevens, Paulson, and Pitman? Stevens has always held that the unborn have no right to life until they have taken the first breath. Isn’t this equivalent to denying the humanity and personhood of the unborn?

We agree that we are free to sin, steal, and murder; nevertheless there are serious consequences if we do. Isn’t the task of the church to preach against sin? Jesus did say to sinners quite often, “neither do I condemn you,” but he added: “Sin no more, else something worse will happen to you” [My paraphrase].

Ezekiel was warned by the Lord that if he did not warn the sinner of his sinful life, the prophet would have to answer for the blood of the sinner. The Bible also tells us that preachers who fail to warn sinners about their sins are like dogs that cannot bark. The Bible also calls his servants to sound the trumpet warning about their sinful behavior. This the church had decided to refuse to perform.

Can you imagine John the Baptist, or Moses, or Elijah, or Paul preaching the kind of Gospel you are promoting?

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, I see it, Doug.

Sickening.

JN Andrews said it very well - thank you for posting this quote, Nic:

"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."

I think pro-choicers truly believe that abortion is not murder - that the unborn are some form of subhuman beings - kinda like slaves were considered by some slave traders and owners.

These same pro-choicers would have an absolute cow if someone started aborting baby seals or otters or some other cute little creature. They'd be first in line demanding that the perpetrators be put in jail!

Remember the judgement coming up soon? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And the converse is also true - If ye did it NOT to the least of these ye did it not to me. I wonder if being an accessory to the murder of Christ by looking the other way or by voting for abortion "rights" qualifies as righteousness?

No, I don't wonder, I know. It's hard for me to believe there are so many who refuse to defend the lives of these helpless babies.

Eight years ago, my wife and I adopted a little girl from China. She has been such a blessing to us that the thought she could have been aborted (it's legal over there) just makes us shudder. We are so glad that her parents were more moral than the US Supreme Court.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me elaborate on this a little bit:

That is exactly what happened with Dred Scott, a black slave owned by an Army surgeon. Scott sued for freedom when his master relocated to Upper Louisiana where slavery was prohibited. Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that blacks were less than human, and consequently entitled to nothing:

"They had for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it."[5]

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?page_id=727

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Nic, until you become a woman and are put in a situation where you need to make a choice, you have no business telling anyone what they should or should not do in the case of abortion. It is between the woman and God. Not between the woman and Nic or Doug or Karl or anyone else.

[Woody]

Nic, until you become a woman and are put in a situation where you need to make a choice, you have no business telling anyone what they should or should not do in the case of abortion. It is between the woman and God. Not between the woman and Nic or Doug or Karl or anyone else.

TU

Well said Rudywoofs. I agree.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Nic, until you become a woman and are put in a situation where you need to make a choice, you have no business telling anyone what they should or should not do in the case of abortion. It is between the woman and God. Not between the woman and Nic or Doug or Karl or anyone else.

TU

Well said Rudywoofs. I agree.

amen!! i refuse to tell another person, who has to live with the consequences of my meddling for the rest of their life, what to do!!

2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

[Overaged]

PK, all this heated discussion about unborn babies and choice and everything is becoming more and more confusing to me. I'm going to give myself a timeout, smoke some gange, and have me a couple of beers until this issue becomes more understandable.Who knows,since my nerves are a little edgey from trying to figure it all out maybe I'll take up smoking again? I hope nobody minds,I won't be gone long.Hold that thought.And thanks for your understanding.