Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[karl]

karl, for real!!

presenting an ------ claim and accusing the other person of it is -------.

as i said, stuff just starts coming out without reason or rhyme!

and nic has not proven his claim, in spite of his thousands and thousands of words!

or perhaps you could start providing the "proof", yourself instead of just making claims?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Nic

There is no repentance and no forgiveness, and our sisters are left without the peace which passes understanding.

More quotes from Nic, the voice of God. **snort**

This is such a private thing between a woman and God I honestly cannot believe you are setting yourself up to be judge and jury.

Pam, could you imagine for us a conversation between a woman and God about the termination of the baby inside her?

I think it would really help men to understand what you and teresa are talking about if you could address this from the woman's perspective which you so consistently insist that men cannot understand.

I must admit that I can't think of a single thing a woman could say to God about planning an abortion.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

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.

Shane,

You claim that “Societies that have restricted abortion have dramatically less abortions.” Please, provide the source of this data. Is it coming from a credible source? The history in our own country seems to contradict said assertion. In two years following the legalization of abortion the number of abortions jumped from 744,600 to a million, and the number of abortions doubled in the first decade following Roe v Wade. What does this tell you?

Regarding the number of unwed births, my question is: How is this relevant to the killing of the unborn which is the topic of this discussion. My point is that the statistics we have from what happened in the U.S. seems to confirm my argument that the legalization of abortion doubled as a result of Roe v Wade. Do you deny this? And the statistics I am using is coming from the Guttmacher Institute, an agency created by Planned Parenthood, which means that we can rely on said information because no one would argue that the main provider of abortion would inflate the figures.

[Nic Samojluk]

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}

Yes, the Dragon is here and its beginning to thunder his voice.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

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.

This was the view of the Supreme Court 35 years ago. Since then science has taught us so much we really see that abortion isn't just about the woman's body. The fetus actually has its own DNA before the woman even knows she is pregnant. The fetus has its own blood. So the question now isn't so much what the woman can do with *her* body but what she can do with the fetus' body.

Does the right to privacy allow a mother to abuse her child in the privacy of her own home? No, of course not. So why would the same right to privacy allow the same mother to do violence to the child in the privacy of her womb?

The Supreme Court may one day overturn Roe vs. Wade and when that happens abortion is going to go onto the ballot at a state level. Pro-choice groups need to give up this right to abortion argument because it is a losing argument. There is no right to abortion. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. There is no right to meat eating either but no one wants to ban McDonald's.

Shane,

I agree with you on 90 percent of what you said. I make exception to the McDonald illustration. Eating a sandwich can never be the moral equivalent of killing a human being. NEVER!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I know that she and her partner will keep heaping scorn on me and my work. That is the work of the Devil, and Jesus was treated that way.

So now I am the work of the Devil? "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

Getting desparate, are you, Nic, to equate Teresa and I with the work of the Devil?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

karl, for real!!

presenting an ------ claim and accusing the other person of it is -------.

as i said, stuff just starts coming out without reason or rhyme!

and nic has not proven his claim, in spite of his thousands and thousands of words!

or perhaps you could start providing the "proof", yourself instead of just making claims?

Originally Posted By: karl

Nic said fewer Adventist women would choose abortion if the church took a stand similar to that of the Adventist Pioneers.

Originally Posted By: teresa

you havent proven the pioneers took a stand.

and who, exactly, took a count as to how many "adventist" women have abortions?

Straightforward question: If the Adventist church were to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies, do you think fewer Adventist women would choose abortion?

Eschew obfuscation!

No, why would they?

[Dr. Shane]

Shane,

You claim that “Societies that have restricted abortion have dramatically less abortions.” Please, provide the source of this data. Is it coming from a credible source? The history in our own country seems to contradict said assertion.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane,

Nobody understands the mindset of the girl facing an unwanted abortion, not even Shane, unless Shane has had an unwanted pregnancy.

Not true. Maybe Shane has had an unwanted pregnancy. Regardless of that, one can understand the mindset and must understand it to deal with the issue logically.

[Woody]

Quote:

So now I am the work of the Devil?

From personal experience Pam ... I know that when people resort to these kinds of attacks ... they are just exposing their real colors. It is sad. But we have been told that in the end times there will be people like this.

Some place themselves in the place of God in judging others. This meets the definition of blasphemy.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

She claims that I concluded that the Adventist Church now is pro-life!

Nic, you are right here. I made a mistake in typing my answer. The Adventist Church is now pro-choice, in my opinion.

Btw, you claimed that you ignore my posts. Apparently you still read them.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Straightforward question: If the Adventist church were to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies, do you think fewer Adventist women would choose abortion?

Eschew obfuscation!

No, why would they?

OK, then,

Why are you against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion if you believe it will make no difference?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

More quotes from Nic, the voice of God. **snort**

This is such a private thing between a woman and God I honestly cannot believe you are setting yourself up to be judge and jury. [/quote']

Pam, could you imagine for us a conversation between a woman and God about the termination of the baby inside her?

I think it would really help men to understand what you and teresa are talking about if you could address this from the woman's perspective which you so consistently insist that men cannot understand.

I must admit that I can't think of a single thing a woman could say to God about planning an abortion.

Karl, the choice for an abortion is a personal issue between a woman and God. As such, neither you nor I should be privy to her conversations with God about it.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

No, why would they? [/quote']

OK, then,

Why are you against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion if you believe it will make no difference?

I never said I was against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion. I'm for not judging a woman who decides to make that decision either way.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

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}

Yes, the Dragon is here and its beginning to thunder his voice.

irrelevant

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Shane

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. [/quote']

Abortion is not the answer, the gospel is, Unmarried sex has consequences to reap. A wrong is not made right by a worse wrong, that kind of thinking never works.

Perhaps the alcoholic is having a "crisis" too, just give him drink, right? Solves that problem. When the thief runs out of money should he meditate on this?

Exo 20:15 You shall not steal.

And this:

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Or do good Christians just suggest that he just go ahead and well....steal some more money, after all he has to eat and pay rent, right?

Every single sin can be "justified" by man. But they will turn into ropes of sand.

May God bless you for your courage to stick for what is right as clearly taught in Scripture. Sin and sinful tendencies tend to distort the reasoning powers of those who resist the will of God.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Sin and sinful tendencies tend to distort the reasoning powers of those who resist the will of God.

I certainly agree with that.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

OK, then,

Why are you against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion if you believe it will make no difference?

I never said I was against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion. I'm for not judging a woman who decides to make that decision either way.

I think this is progress.

Absolutely, we must, as a church and as individuals, have a redemptive attitude towards those who wrong others (in this case, their own children.)

But we need to be officially FOR traveling the high road. This means we actively encourage people NOT to take the low road.

I'm with Nic on wanting the church to take a decided stand against abortion. I clearly got the idea from you that you were opposed to this. Obviously I wasn't understanding what you were intending.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

[Jeannieb43]

You're showing your naivete and ignorance by your last statement. You just haven't lived long enough to understand that there may be _many_ possible reasons for an abortion, and it would not be a sin.

You're free to control your own wife (if she'll allow it), but you're not free to try to control all the women of the world. You have no idea. Just go on your way. You've done enough harm already.

===========

While I was posting this, I see you have changed your own post. So my "last statement" statement doesn't make sense. The message is still current, however.

[Nic Samojluk]

Some one said to not make this a male vs female issue...how many men have babies? Now one has given any proof that a couple of cells is a baby. TAke those cells from several groups of animal life and show me the difference. Statistical sampling is just that, sampling, says nothing about the accuracy. There are several more tests that must be performed on that sample to determine if it accurately reflects the population it was taken from and what is the sampling error plus, etc etc. Statistics is a wonderful piece of math, but is mostly abused and wrong for the sake of proving a preconceived idea or premise. Most public surveys are not unbiased and wording of the questions can give a desired answer, ie, political polls. No doubt many women are against abortion, but what is their answer after the rape, incest, etc. For a question on abortion to be accurate both set of individuals need to be polled in equal numbers.

God gave man 'choice' and a brain to use. If some wish to control womens choice, stay away from such a person for there will be many other aspects of spiritual life they will try to control also. For examples of such...just read the religious topics in the many forums.

The topic of this thread is really about fault finding of the church, disguised as being of supreme importance. To many people are Gods in their own minds!!

CoAspen,

You ask: “How many men have babies? And I ask: How many women were involved in the Roe v Wade deicision? Weren’t they all men? Are you suggesting that men made a terrible blunder and therefore men are not entitled to undo the same?

You said: “TAke those cells from several groups of animal life and show me the difference.” I cant tell the difference, but a DNA expert can. Human DNA cells are different from animal DNA cells.

You said: “God gave man 'choice' and a brain to use.” My answer is: Yes, and God gave a set of rules. We know quite well what happens when men rebel against God’s rules. Adam thought it was a good idea to experiment, and look what happened. We are paying the price for his rebellion thousands of years later. Look at the price Jesus paid for said rebellion. Are you determined to encourage women to follow Adam’s example?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I never said I was against the Adventist church taking a stand against abortion. I'm for not judging a woman who decides to make that decision either way. [/quote']

I think this is progress.

are you trying to wear people down, karl?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't think the church SHOULD take a stand. But if it does, I still would not judge a woman's choice to have an abortion. To take a stand against abortion would be to declare it a sin, and I don't believe that is the case for all abortions. We don't need to be judging people. That's God's work. Satan is the condemner of man. I don't understand why someone thinks he needs to set himself up as God. And by the same token, be doing the condemning work of Satan.

[Jeannieb43]

I don't think the church SHOULD take a stand. But if it does, I still would not judge a woman's choice to have an abortion. To take a stand against abortion would be to declare it a sin, and I don't believe that is the case for all abortions. We don't need to be judging people. That's God's work. Satan is the condemner of man. I don't understand why someone thinks he needs to set himself up as God. And by the same token, be doing the condemning work of Satan.

Amen.