Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It is not up to the mother to choose death for her unborn, she does not own her own body, much less anyone else's.

The voice of Nic the god again.

We are to care for our bodies the best way that we can. If that means someone chooses a therapeutic abortion, who are you to pass judgment, eh?

[teresaq]

We are not told whether unborn children will be given life in heaven, but do they not deserve a chance for eternal life since Jesus has paid the price for them too?

[Dr. Shane]

I said A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE....CHOOSE....CHOOSE....CHOOSE....CHOOSE...

Choose what? Choose to beat her children? Choose not to pay her electric bill? Choose smoke crack? Choose to eat blue cheese and crackers?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The helpless unborn children that are aborted in their innocence cry out to God for life and justice...

The children who have nothing to eat, who are raped, who are born with no prospect of adoption cry out to God for help. Will you help *those* children? It doesn't sound like it.

[Dr. Shane]

Polls are not always accurate. Statistics can be manipulated.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Killing born babies is murder, I will agree to that. Therapeutic abortions I don't consider as "killing babies"... And I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose. I may not agree with her choice, but it IS her choice, made between her and her God...

I don't agree that a woman has a "right" to abortion. If she does, where did she get that "right"? Where did the "right" come from? No such "right" is stated in the Bible nor in the Constitution. So I don't believe any such "right" exists.

That said however, banning abortion has been shown to be counterproductive if we are trying to reduce the number of abortions performed. If what we really want to do is to reduce the number of abortions performed, then keeping abortion legal and placing restrictions on it is what has been shown to effectively reduce the number of abortions performed.

\

You took what I said and miscontrued it and said

Quote:

I don't agree that a woman has a "right" to abortion.

What I said was

Quote:

And I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose.

The issue being discussed here is ABORTION.

[Dr. Shane]

Can you illuminate me as to the churchs's true position?

Links to that position have been posted here several times.

Guidelines on Abortion

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Killing born babies is murder, I will agree to that. Therapeutic abortions I don't consider as "killing babies"... And I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose. I may not agree with her choice, but it IS her choice, made between her and her God...

I don't agree that a woman has a "right" to abortion. If she does, where did she get that "right"? Where did the "right" come from? No such "right" is stated in the Bible nor in the Constitution. So I don't believe any such "right" exists.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Steve

The helpless unborn children that are aborted in their innocence cry out to God for life and justice...

The children who have nothing to eat, who are raped, who are born with no prospect of adoption cry out to God for help. Will you help *those* children? It doesn't sound like it.

Who made you my judge? You have absolutely no clue what I do and don't do. So what sentence do you give to me?

Judge not, that ye be not judged." Do not think yourself better than other men, and set yourself up as their judge. Since you cannot discern motive, you are incapable of judging another. In criticizing him, you are passing sentence upon yourself; for you show that you are a participant with Satan, the accuser of the brethren. The Lord says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." This is our work. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 11:31. {DA 314.1}

If we obey the Bible, and all of us can do better including me:

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Tricks of the Devil

1. Baby and bath-water trick

This snare has historically been one of the most effective. Martin Luther was once confronted with a group of men that recommended ditching the Bible and having direct communication with the Spirit. They were fanatics from Zwickau. He rejected them and their silly ideas. One of their ideas: infant baptism does not count for anything. In olden days water for bathing was hauled to the home from the well and was discarded when all had taken their bath. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” was a proverb arising from that era. It illustrated the danger of discarding something precious in your hurry to be rid of something repulsive.

Luther threw the metaphorical baby truth out with the bathwater of false prophecy. The false logic sounds like this, “If a weirdo is teaching it, it must be false.” If we are willing to reject an idea simply because it comes from a source that spews out error, we are easy prey. All Satan needs to do to dupe us is to have a quack tell us the truth.(Eugene Prewitt)

This illustrates what abortionists do, kill the unborn to "solve" another problem. A snare of the devil.

[Dr. Shane]

You took what I said and miscontrued it and said

Quote:

I don't agree that a woman has a "right" to abortion.

What I said was

Quote:

And I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose.

The issue being discussed here is ABORTION.

So in this context saying a woman has the right to choose abortion is the same as saying a woman has the right to abortion. I disagree with that. Where did this right to choose abortion come from? I do not see such a right in the Bible nor in the US Constitution. The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the US Supreme Court has made the jump from privacy to abortion. I think that was too big of a jump and given the increase in knowledge that we have gained in the past 30 years more and more people are agreeing that the unborn child should have its own rights apart from the pregnant mother. The word abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor is the procedure referred to by any other name. It is not there. No right exists except by an interpretation of the Supreme Court which is subject to being reversed.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Can you illuminate me as to the churchs's true position?

Links to that position have been posted here several times.

Guidelines on Abortion

How about Guidelines to the Ten Commandments?

Exodus 20:2-17

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the US Supreme Court has made the jump from privacy to abortion. I think that was too big of a jump..

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. Okay.

[Dr. Shane]

Sorry to remind you that, acording to Planned Parenthood's, the main provider of abortions in the U.S., there were reported 744,600 abortions for 1973, but it mushroomed to a million by 1975 and to a million and a half by 1983. This tells you the tragic result of the legalization of abortion.

Don't be sorry. Just be honest and provide proper context. What happened in the 1970s was abortion-on-demand. Societies that have restricted abortion have dramatically less abortions. Even states that have restricted abortion have had significantly less abortions. Also, don't forget to mention the sexual revolution that happened in the '70s. Provide the number of unwed births for the same time period. As the number of pregnant, unwed women increased, so did the number of abortions.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the US Supreme Court has made the jump from privacy to abortion. I think that was too big of a jump..

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. Okay.

As do a few Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court today. The decision can be reversed.

[Steve Billiter]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

You took what I said and miscontrued it and said

Quote:

I don't agree that a woman has a "right" to abortion.

What I said was

Quote:

And I still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose.

The issue being discussed here is ABORTION.

So in this context saying a woman has the right to choose abortion is the same as saying a woman has the right to abortion. I disagree with that. Where did this right to choose abortion come from? I do not see such a right in the Bible nor in the US Constitution. The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the US Supreme Court has made the jump from privacy to abortion. I think that was too big of a jump and given the increase in knowledge that we have gained in the past 30 years more and more people are agreeing that the unborn child should have its own rights apart from the pregnant mother. The word abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor is the procedure referred to by any other name. It is not there. No right exists except by an interpretation of the Supreme Court which is subject to being reversed.

Who cares what the US supreme court says? This country will speak as dragon ultimately when she forms the image to the beast. America has been slowly, increasingly, producing dragon breath for many years now.Look at the states legalizing same sex marriage? The Blair bill in 1887 was narrowly defeated, a Sunday law. I could go on and on.

Mat 22:21 They said unto him, Caesar's. Then said he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

A time is coming when the law of God is, in a special sense, to be made void in our land. The rulers of our nation will, by legislative enactments, enforce the Sunday law, and thus God's people be brought into great peril.

When our nation, in its legislative councils, shall enact laws to bind the consciences of men in regard to their religious privileges, enforcing Sunday observance, and bringing oppressive power to bear against those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, the law of God will, to all intents and purposes, be made void in our land; and national apostasy will be followed by national ruin.” (RH Dec. 18, 1888) {7BC 977.2}

As soon as Christ was raised from the dead, Satan's lying propensities led him to start the lie that the body of Christ had been stolen. By this he thought he could conceal the fact that it was the Son of God who had died, and he could, after all, make a victory out of his terrible defeat. Failing in this, he tried another scheme.

He had controlled the Jewish nation so that they had rejected and crucified the Son of God. He now pretends to exalt Christ before the Christian world by telling them that instead of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath they must keep the first day of the week in memory of Christ's resurrection. Anything, he cares not what, to show that the law of God can be changed! If he can make the world believe that this law can be changed, he has gained his point. {RH, March 9, 1886 par. 20}

There is one pointed out in prophecy as the man of sin. He is the representative of Satan. Taking the suggestions of Satan concerning the law of God, which is as unchangeable as his throne, this man of sin comes in and represents to the world that he has changed that law, and that the first day of the week instead of the seventh is now the Sabbath.

Professing infallibility, he claims the right to change the law of God to suit his own purposes. By doing, he exalts himself above God, and leaves the world to infer that God is fallible. If it were indeed true that God had made a rule of government that needed to be changed, it would certainly show fallibility. {RH, March 9, 1886 par. 21}

[Dr. Shane]

Shane,

Thanks for trying; nevertheless the comparison is inappropriate, because a girl about to go over a waterfall is almost sure to loose her life. In the case of pregnancy there is no such risk. Actually, carrying the pregnancy to term is safer than abortion.

Here is proof that Nic does not understand the mindset of a girl with a crisis pregnancy. It is little wonder he favors banning abortion. He doesn't grasp the subject matter and as a result will never come to a logical conclusion.

A girl with a crisis pregnancy does have the same mindset of a man about to go over a waterfall. Of course the danger isn't the same but it doesn't have to be for her to have the same mindset. For her, it is the same. In her mind, her world is coming to an end just as surely as a guy going over a waterfall. No law banning abortion is going to stop her from having one just like a law against trespassing will not prevent a man from going on another's land to save himself from going over a waterfall.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Polls are not always accurate. Statistics can be manipulated.

This is true. However reputable polling do not manipulate statistics because their livelihood depends on their accuracy. Gallop is one of the most reputable polling organizations at the present time.

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

The only way to know with absolute certainty is to query every woman on earth.

No, a statistic sample properly done will produce a result that will be certain.

I am referring to absolute certainty (100%). There is no statistical sampling that will provide that.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Choose what? Choose to beat her children? Choose not to pay her electric bill? Choose smoke crack? Choose to eat blue cheese and crackers?

this was at least unfair' date=' shane,

[/quote']

I asked where the right to abortion came from and this was the response I got. Rudywoods responded by saying "choose" as if the right to choice is something different than the right to an abortion. Thus I was asking for clarification. I don't think that was unfair or out of line.

[Dr. Shane]

I am referring to absolute certainty (100%). There is no statistical sampling that will provide that.

When a nation counts its population, it will actually get a more accurate count by using statistical sampling than it will be trying to physically count every single person. That is how accurate statistical sampling is.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You were not asking for clarification. You knew exactly what I was referring to.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I am referring to absolute certainty (100%). There is no statistical sampling that will provide that.

When a nation counts its population, it will actually get a more accurate count by using statistical sampling than it will be trying to physically count every single person. That is how accurate statistical sampling is.

No. Sampling is exactly what it says. It's a sampling of the population. Again, I am referring to a 100% absolute certainty.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You were not asking for clarification. You knew exactly what I was referring to.

No, I did not. I am still not clear on it. What is the difference between the right to choice and the right to abortion? I grasp the right to privacy. I don't grasp this right to choice.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

A woman's body is private. What do you not understand about that? What she does with her body is her private business between her and God.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Shane,

Thanks for trying; nevertheless the comparison is inappropriate, because a girl about to go over a waterfall is almost sure to loose her life. In the case of pregnancy there is no such risk. Actually, carrying the pregnancy to term is safer than abortion.

Here is proof that Nic does not understand the mindset of a girl with a crisis pregnancy. It is little wonder he favors banning abortion. He doesn't grasp the subject matter and as a result will never come to a logical conclusion.

A girl with a crisis pregnancy does have the same mindset of a man about to go over a waterfall. Of course the danger isn't the same but it doesn't have to be for her to have the same mindset. For her, it is the same. In her mind, her world is coming to an end just as surely as a guy going over a waterfall. No law banning abortion is going to stop her from having one just like a law against trespassing will not prevent a man from going on another's land to save himself from going over a waterfall.

but nic doesnt care about the woman, just making and enforcing laws.

there has been no mention of making lemonade out of lemons by brainstorming and implementing plans that help the various girls/women and their circumstances.

many, if not all of those who would force women to bring children into this world, have no intentions of giving their life to help these girls/women for the next 18-21 years. sometimes there might be help for a year or two, if that, but the best they can come up with is to take these ladies babies and give them to someone else.

[Dr. Shane]

No. Sampling is exactly what it says. It's a sampling of the population. Again, I am referring to a 100% absolute certainty.

My point is that statistically sampling is more accurate than trying to get some kind of 100% count. This is true if we are discussing health issues, political issues, safety issues or any issue at all. So if someone doesn't accept statistical sampling they may as well bow out of a conversation.

The only issue is if the organization doing the statistical sampling is reputable. If it is a trustworthy organization, the statistical sampling will be as good of information as can be collected without having the mind of God.