Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[karl]

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.

Pam

When we are discussing the plight of these children you keep bringing up the desires and the collateral damage in the life of the mother.

These extenuating circumstances do not change the fact that someone's life is being deliberately terminated. Someone who would develop into a walking, talking, huggable, kissable toddler, if not deliberately "terminated" (dismembered just as viciously as if it were Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it with special effects.)

I personally know three women who live with the torture of having made the wrong decision (to kill the baby.) They never get over it. They know that they were the main accomplices in the death of their children, and that they abdicated their protective duty as mothers of these now dead children. The fact that that baby is tethered to her uterus makes it MORE dependent on the mother, not less.

True, it can be an inconvenience to life's plans and can even have negative health effects in some instances to have a pregnancy, I don't deny this.

The question is, which extenuating circumstances are justification for killing babies? Choice? Unless you KNOW that having that baby is going to kill you, with all the parents willing to adopt it, I don't see where you can justify killing it in self defense.

How about partial birth abortion? Does it make a difference to you WHEN the baby is murdered?

Why not allow inconvenienced parents the right to murder their children at any time up to the age of 21? Teenagers can be especially damaging to our life plans. I can't say that I haven't at least considered eating my own young when my boys were teenagers.

Sorry about being so graphic above, but somebody has to stand up for the helpless. Equal rights for the unborn!!

[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.

Karl,

Your comments are the answer to my prayers! There is no doubt but that the truths you are sharing with us have been revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. May the good Lord continue your blessed minitry to the thirsty souls!

[Nic Samojluk]

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

God will not take away my right to lie, steal, rape, or murder. He will simply let me reap the consequences of my rebellion against his will. Likewise, God will not take away my right and duty to warn sinners about the impending Day of Jedgment.

This is the duty of the church. If the church fails to perform said duty, she will have to answer to the Creator for refusing to perform her sacred task. Otherwise, what is the church for? Why should I pay my tithe to the church if it is paving my way to hell with gold?

[Nic Samojluk]

lol

Is this a coded message?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

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.

How about some weeds as well. Marihuana is known to be an effective way of calming down a person. I have a neighbor who can provide you with the needed paraphernalia, including crack cocaine!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Karl, quick, read the first 10 pages of this thread and report back,PRONTO!! [/quote']

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.

Like Mary, who sat at Jesus' feet, you also have made the right choice, and nobody will take away from you the blessings granted those who do God's will. Yes, adoption is what God wants us to choose instead of abortion. Refusing to choose the best option is sin, according to what the Bible says. Abortion compounds the evil instead of solving the problem. Adoption is a redemptive act, while abortion is what the Devil is good at: MURDER.

[Nic Samojluk]

To The OP of this Topic: You have managed to turn this whole thing into something that it is not. With claims of a "scholarly" theses, God's Remnant "changing the 6th commandment," and the resulting "creation of genocide;" you have moved this issue to well beyond the realms of reality and truth. Even your reference to scripture in your signature and other of your posts are not really very accurate. In short, you use many embellishments and "red-herring arguments" here to say things about the Adventist Church which simply are not even close to being true. To approach a "thesis" with a biased view is one thing; but it is quite another to make the kinds of accusations and innuendos which you emboss under the guise of "research" and "evidence."

Overaged,

I will have to simply ignore your ad hominem criticism of my research. My main thesis is that the church has departed from the pro-life attitude of the early Adventist pioneers. Do you dispute this? Do you have any concrete evidence of where I have erred? I have documented everything in black and white and I am willing to correct any factual errors that I have made. I did correct one factual error which was pointed to me, and I am willing to do the same if someone takes the time to be specific and to the point. This is my challenge to you: Show me any errors of facts and I will gladly make the proper corrections.

[Overaged]

God will not take away my right to lie, steal, rape, or murder. He will simply let me reap the consequences of my rebellion against his will. Likewise, God will not take away my right and duty to warn sinners about the impending Day of Jedgment.

This is the duty of the church. If the church fails to perform said duty, she will have to answer to the Creator for refusing to perform her sacred task. Otherwise, what is the church for? Why should I pay my tithe to the church if it is paving my way to hell with gold?

How can you, as one who claims the "right" to lie, steal, rape, kill, or whatever, have the nerve to tell anyone what the duty of the Church is? As one who claims such falsehood, and the "rights" to such wickedness, you think to appoint yourself as appointed by God to "warn sinners of impending judgment?" That is just plain whacky. No one has a "right" to do such wicked things! How can you pervert truth so thoroughly, just to justify your cause? How can you promote such evil; and even half believe you are right? Your "message" is evil. And the Scripture also says "woe to them who call evil good." Abortion might be wrong; but so are you.

PS God will not take away this so called "right" from anyone, because it is not given to anyone. It is only claimed by some.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

To The OP of this Topic: You have managed to turn this whole thing into something that it is not. With claims of a "scholarly" theses, God's Remnant "changing the 6th commandment," and the resulting "creation of genocide;" you have moved this issue to well beyond the realms of reality and truth. Even your reference to scripture in your signature and other of your posts are not really very accurate. In short, you use many embellishments and "red-herring arguments" here to say things about the Adventist Church which simply are not even close to being true. To approach a "thesis" with a biased view is one thing; but it is quite another to make the kinds of accusations and innuendos which you emboss under the guise of "research" and "evidence."

Overaged,

I will have to simply ignore your ad hominem criticism of my research. My main thesis is that the church has departed from the pro-life attitude of the early Adventist pioneers. Do you dispute this? Do you have any concrete evidence of where I have erred? I have documented everything in black and white and I am willing to correct any factual errors that I have made. I did correct one factual error which was pointed to me, and I am willing to do the same if someone takes the time to be specific and to the point. This is my challenge to you: Show me any errors of facts and I will gladly make the proper corrections.

No you won't. You have shown that to others already here. Summarily dismissing what I have said as "adhominem" is a convenient lie, and a cheap apologetics ruse for you to believe in and infect others with. My challenge to you is to prove that what I said is wrong. You have already failed to follow through with your own "rule" to ignore my alledgedly "adhominem" statements by not ignoring it. or do you also have the "right" to different rules for yourself than the rest of the Church whom you are "warning about impendinding judgment?" You need fewer excuses and less embellishments of the facts at hand.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Pam

When we are discussing the plight of these children you keep bringing up the desires and the collateral damage in the life of the mother.

These extenuating circumstances do not change the fact that someone's life is being deliberately terminated. Someone who would develop into a walking, talking, huggable, kissable toddler, if not deliberately "terminated" (dismembered just as viciously as if it were Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it with special effects.)

I personally know three women who live with the torture of having made the wrong decision (to kill the baby.) They never get over it. They know that they were the main accomplices in the death of their children, and that they abdicated their protective duty as mothers of these now dead children. The fact that that baby is tethered to her uterus makes it MORE dependent on the mother, not less.

True, it can be an inconvenience to life's plans and can even have negative health effects in some instances to have a pregnancy, I don't deny this.

The question is, which extenuating circumstances are justification for killing babies? Choice? Unless you KNOW that having that baby is going to kill you, with all the parents willing to adopt it, I don't see where you can justify killing it in self defense.

How about partial birth abortion? Does it make a difference to you WHEN the baby is murdered?

Why not allow inconvenienced parents the right to murder their children at any time up to the age of 21? Teenagers can be especially damaging to our life plans. I can't say that I haven't at least considered eating my own young when my boys were teenagers.

Sorry about being so graphic above, but somebody has to stand up for the helpless. Equal rights for the unborn!!

Karl,

You came to this thread at the right time. I believe that if nine male unelected Justices of the Court made the terrible blunder of removing the legal protection from the unborn, then it is only proper for men to undo what other men have done. Sin entered into the world by the action of one man: ADAM. Another man came to correct said error: Jesus Christ. This is the work assigned for those who have accepted Jesus as God--sent Redeemer. The work of redemption is ours and of the church we belong to.

If the church has decided to neglect this sacred duty, then laymen have the obligation to call the church to account for its dereliction of duty. When the church condones what God has condemned, it is time for laymen to act. The Adventist Church is not growing in North America. How can it grow if we are killing our own children, the future generation of Adventists? The church is growing by leaps and bounds in many countries where abortion is still illegal.

I will be 78 in a few months, and I have sending my tithe and offerings to my church all my life. Since the pastors who are living of my tithes and offerings have ceased to perform their sacred duties, I have decided to split my tithes and offerings and I have been sending a good portion of it to those agencies who are doing God’s work on behalf of the unborn. The day my church ceases to support the Sabbath, I will cease sending any sacred money to it.

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

God will not take away my right to lie, steal, rape, or murder. He will simply let me reap the consequences of my rebellion against his will. Likewise, God will not take away my right and duty to warn sinners about the impending Day of Jedgment.

This is the duty of the church. If the church fails to perform said duty, she will have to answer to the Creator for refusing to perform her sacred task. Otherwise, what is the church for? Why should I pay my tithe to the church if it is paving my way to hell with gold?

How can you, as one who claims the "right" to lie, steal, rape, kill, or whatever, have the nerve to tell anyone what the duty of the Church is? As one who claims such falsehood, and the "rights" to such wickedness, you think to appoint yourself as appointed by God to "warn sinners of impending judgment?" That is just plain whacky. No one has a "right" to do such wicked things! How can you pervert truth so thoroughly, just to justify your cause? How can you promote such evil; and even half believe you are right? Your "message" is evil. And the Scripture also says "woe to them who call evil good." Abortion might be wrong; but so are you.

PS God will not take away this so called "right" from anyone, because it is not given to anyone. It is only claimed by some.

I think he meant something more like "freedom" to sin.

We are worried about murdering unborn babies, but we have no problem murdering others with words?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

How can you, as one who claims the "right" to lie, steal, rape, kill, or whatever, have the nerve to tell anyone what the duty of the Church is? As one who claims such falsehood, and the "rights" to such wickedness, you think to appoint yourself as appointed by God to "warn sinners of impending judgment?" That is just plain whacky. No one has a "right" to do such wicked things! How can you pervert truth so thoroughly, just to justify your cause? How can you promote such evil; and even half believe you are right? Your "message" is evil. And the Scripture also says "woe to them who call evil good." Abortion might be wrong; but so are you.

PS God will not take away this so called "right" from anyone, because it is not given to anyone. It is only claimed by some.[/quote'] I think he meant something more like "freedom" to sin.

We are worried about murdering unborn babies, but we have no problem murdering others with words?

I am quite surprised to come back to Church after being away for quite a while; to find ones who actually believe we have the right to kill or lie or rape or steal; and then to see others get all worried when "words" are used to express the same. To intimate that I "murder someone with my words" here is the same as supporting what this individual said. This fellow claims quite a bit of "scholarly research" in his "documentation," so I was thinking that he would just say what he means. He meant exactly what he said. Those crimes he said we have a "right" to do, are not rights at all. That is where you will find the murderous words.

[SivartM]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I am quite surprised to come back to Church after being away for quite a while; to find ones who actually believe we have the right to kill or lie or rape or steal; and then to see others get all worried when "words" are used to express the same. To intimate that I "murder someone with my words" here is the same as supporting what this individual said. This fellow claims quite a bit of "scholarly research" in his "documentation," so I was thinking that he would just say what he means. He meant exactly what he said. Those crimes he said we have a "right" to do, are not rights at all. That is where you will find the murderous words.

Wouldn't it be better to just ask him what he meant instead of assuming the worst and getting upset about it?

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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.

First, abortion is not morally accepted in the US. Polls show that over 70% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong.

Second, banning abortion does not serve as a deterrent to sexual promiscuity as seen in various nations where abortion is banned.

[Dr. Shane]

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?

I don't believe it would be right. However I don't believe we need the church membership calling church meetings to discuss whether or not a girl's abortion was justifiable and debating what type of church discipline needs to be administered. The decision in such cases needs to be left between the church member, her doctor and any spiritual adviser she may consult.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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.

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?

Why would a man have to force his wife to have sex with him if they were both Biblical Christians.

1 Corinthians 7:

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Pam

When we are discussing the plight of these children you keep bringing up the desires and the collateral damage in the life of the mother.

These extenuating circumstances do not change the fact that someone's life is being deliberately terminated. Someone who would develop into a walking, talking, huggable, kissable toddler, if not deliberately "terminated" (dismembered just as viciously as if it were Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it with special effects.)

I personally know three women who live with the torture of having made the wrong decision (to kill the baby.) They never get over it. They know that they were the main accomplices in the death of their children, and that they abdicated their protective duty as mothers of these now dead children. The fact that that baby is tethered to her uterus makes it MORE dependent on the mother, not less.

True, it can be an inconvenience to life's plans and can even have negative health effects in some instances to have a pregnancy, I don't deny this.

The question is, which extenuating circumstances are justification for killing babies? Choice? Unless you KNOW that having that baby is going to kill you, with all the parents willing to adopt it, I don't see where you can justify killing it in self defense.

How about partial birth abortion? Does it make a difference to you WHEN the baby is murdered?

Why not allow inconvenienced parents the right to murder their children at any time up to the age of 21? Teenagers can be especially damaging to our life plans. I can't say that I haven't at least considered eating my own young when my boys were teenagers.

Sorry about being so graphic above, but somebody has to stand up for the helpless. Equal rights for the unborn!!

Karl, 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.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I believe that if nine male unelected Justices of the Court made the terrible blunder of removing the legal protection from the unborn, then it is only proper for men to undo what other men have done.

irrelevant

[teresaq]

To Those Supporting Abortion: How about we play Doctor? I will be the doctor; and you go with me to the next abortion that I do. I will pass you the forcepts and the suction device so that you can experience the truth. (What did you say we have to do with that bucket by the end of the stretcher, when it gets full, at the end of our day of helping others in the clinic?) When we are finished; we can share the "good news" with everyone on our email list, and all of our friends on Facebook. And then on Sabbath; we will share the love at Church too. Maybe we could even do a slide presentation so that others can share in our joy, and know the truth that will set them free?

while i appreciate your emotional reaction to an ugly situation, i will still not try to force another woman to bring more children into this world, when she is the one who has to live with the consequences for the rest of her life.

furthermore, instead of trying to force people to bring more children into the world i would much prefer heeding the biblical injunction towards those who are already born.

feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, etc.

[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.

These extenuating circumstances do not change the fact that someone's life is being deliberately terminated. Someone who would develop into a walking, talking, huggable, kissable toddler, if not deliberately "terminated" (dismembered just as viciously as if it were Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it with special effects.)...

Sorry about being so graphic above, but somebody has to stand up for the helpless. Equal rights for the unborn!!

karl, have you studied the counsel the Lord gives us through ellen white on the criminality of bringing children into this world unless under certain circumstances?

i have, and according to that counsel my parents stand condemned for having brought me and my siblings into this world. i, and my siblings, also stand condemned as do my children, for having brought children into this world.

it doesnt end there. the parents of my parents stand condemned, the siblings of my parents stand condemned and the ripple widens.

that is just one family tree.

we either regard all the counsel given us or we do not.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

To Those Supporting Abortion: How about we play Doctor? I will be the doctor; and you go with me to the next abortion that I do. I will pass you the forcepts and the suction device so that you can experience the truth. (What did you say we have to do with that bucket by the end of the stretcher, when it gets full, at the end of our day of helping others in the clinic?) When we are finished; we can share the "good news" with everyone on our email list, and all of our friends on Facebook. And then on Sabbath; we will share the love at Church too. Maybe we could even do a slide presentation so that others can share in our joy, and know the truth that will set them free?

while i appreciate your emotional reaction to an ugly situation, i will still not try to force another woman to bring more children into this world, when she is the one who has to live with the consequences for the rest of her life.

furthermore, instead of trying to force people to bring more children into the world i would much prefer heeding the biblical injunction towards those who are already born.

feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, etc.

Excellent. Most Excellent.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

This is incredible! Are you equating forced sex with murder? [/quote']Why would a man have to force his wife to have sex with him if they were both Biblical Christians.

i dont think you have acquainted yourself with the circumstances of the articles referred to.

[karl]

karl, have you studied the counsel the Lord gives us through ellen white on the criminality of bringing children into this world unless under certain circumstances?

we either regard all the counsel given us or we do not.

EGW did not counsel us not to bring children into the world. She was opposed to gospel workers having one child after another that they couldn't support and the care of whom would distract them from their work.

It would be idiotic for her to counsel us not to procreate at all. It would be against God's counsel in His Word. It would be against her own example.

She certainly never endorsed abortion.

[karl]

Karl, 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.

I'll go you one better, Pam.

Not only am I willing to try and interpose between a woman and her victim when that victim is her unborn baby, I'm willing to try and interpose between a woman and her victim when that victim is herself. You may think that this, too is just between her and God, but I'm agin' it.

What are your feelings on suicide, Pam?

It is interesting that the SDA church can come out against suicide, but not against infanticide. How is that for a disconnect?

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat6.html

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

irrelevant.

Why do you want to set yourself up as God?