Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Dr. Shane]

This discussion is most interesting.

[Raphael]

Hi,

The issue of demography where Muslims and others will conquer Christianity through its unbridled mass population production sounds similar to the idea that the world will experience an energy crisis and other doomsday warnings. The unbalanced numbers between 'the good and the bad' will most be evident at Armageddon and yet will end with God's final victory.

The Jewish does not believe that abortion is equivalent to murder or the taking of life while Roman Catholics are clearly upholds that abortion is homicidal sinful murder, while on the other hand Seventh Day Adventist official standpoints are not clear, of whether they are on the Jewish side or the Roman Catholics. (Please correct me if I am mistaken)

Applying the word sin to abortion can be somewhat vague and may denote sin as in smoking, drinking or other vices. Lightly abusing one's health is also sin as committing mass murder according to Biblical standards, but in general, people would not be that alarmed to learn that someone's skipping meals to trim the body in comparison to the existence of a serial mutilation killer.

Is abortion murderous killing as in violation of 'Thou shalt not murder' in the ten commandments or is it a mere ethical issue of violating body health or perhaps even further, where abortions becomes as innocently simple as the blowing of one's nose?

God bless,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

The Bible indicates that God knows us before we are in our mother's womb. Scientifically we know that life begins at conception. The cells start multiplying on their own have their own DNA. I don't see abortion as a black and white issue. I think the way a civil government deals with it should have no bearing at all on how the church deals with it. I actually favor the civil government permitting abortion and the church prohibiting it.

[Nic Samojluk]

Looks like you guys have carried forward quite well. There were only 10-12 pages last time I was there. Now it's on page 43 I think.

Richard,

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that this blog is on again. Nevertheless, can you tell me what happened to all the missing pages? All the pages between #19 and #50 or # 52 if I recall are missing. They have disappeared into cyber space. Notice that when you reappeared on this blog you were surprised that we had moved from page 12 to 43.

Moreover, do you have any assurance that whatever we start posting again will not be swallowed by a black hole again? This blog was moved twice from its original location, and now a major portion of what took us endless hours to build has evaporated into the stratosphere. What is going on? Can you from your privileged position enlighten us on this strange phenomenon?

[Nic Samojluk]

This text speaks to God's care for the unborn. The topic is not abortion, but it does show that God demanded eye for eye, tooth for tooth even for injury to the unborn.

Exo 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Yes, it all depends on what version of the Bible we use. Here is another sample of a modern translation which supports your interpetation ot this biblical text.

"New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."

Based in these versions, you must conclude that the death penalty does apply in the event the baby dies.

[Nic Samojluk]

The Bible outlines a moral role for the government. In Romans 13 Paul advises Christians on how to relate to the government.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Here we find that the role of the government is to punish the wrongdoer and commend those who do right. This authority comes from God. The government then is seen as a moral agent. The government is God's servant in restraining wickedness.

The role of the Christian then was to submit to the requirements of the government willingly. Peter says the same in his letter, even encouraging Christians to submit to a persecuting government whenever possible to silence those who accused Christians of bad behavior.

Paul and Peter wrote from the perspective of their times while under the emperors of Rome. It is a challenge to apply the principles of their teaching to a republic. For those who find themselves living in a monarchy, dictatorship, etc.the role of the Christian is much the same as Paul outlines--submit when possible without compromising Christian faith.

But what about areas where some form of democracy is in place? What is the role of a Christian when they help determine the laws of the land? Unfortunately we do not have clear evidence on this question because the Scriptures largely were written to the original audience in their setting. And neither Israel or the early church were under a democratic form of government.

However, we can deduce some things from the biblical counsel. If it is a biblical role of government to restrain wickedness then should we not whenever possible make our influence one that would commend the good and punish the wrongdoer? If the government has a moral role and we have a role in the government, then we should push for moral principles to be upheld by the government.

But we need to distinguish between moral and religious legislation. The government has a biblical mandate to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This does not in any way indicate that the government has a God-given mandate to dictate religious behavior.

Israel was a theocracy and therefore faith was at the heart of the Israelite government. But the Bible does not endorse a religious role for government in general. Anytime the state attempts to impose religious beliefs we must follow God not man. Peter and John made this clear in Acts 4 when confronted by the Sanhedrin. Daniel also resisted the decree of the king when he imposed a religious law.

Any law that aids a religious group, mandates a state religion, forces a particular religious belief or practice is over-stepping God's mandate for the government.

While Adventist believe that the government will impose religious laws this does not mean that Adventists should back away from aiding the government in its God-given responsibility of upholding morality. In light of biblical counsel, Adventists should uphold moral laws just as vehemently as they oppose laws which would enforce religious belief or practice.

God gave government authority in a moral sphere, and as Christians we should do all we can to uphold it. But He did not give the government authority in a religious sphere, and when it attempts to enter into this area we must oppose it.

It was perhaps easier for the Christian to make political decisions in Paul's day. The common man had no choice in what laws were passed. They submitted to those laws in harmony with God's will. In a democratic society we must make decisions about what laws will pass, what representatives to place in office, and generally, what course of action will promote the good and punish evil. When voting on particular legislation this can be fairly simple. When dealing with candidates it can be more complex. It may be that no one candidate embodies views that we agree with. My personal choice is to vote for the one who I think will uphold the right the majority of the time as this upholds God's role for the government.

I feel like saying a big AMEN to what you have stated so eloquently and so clearly.

[Nic Samojluk]

The issues of temperance and slavery were both addressed by early SDA leaders as moral evils that should be done away with. The issue of temperance is particularly instructive. Here was a divisive moral issue which involved personal freedom.

Here is a statement by Ellen White regarding the role of Adventists in temperance legislation. The principle outlined here is applicable to other issues. We as Christians in a a republic have some role in deciding issues. We should uphold virtue.

In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914

Are Adventists deploring abortion while at the same time doing nothing to restrain this great evil? Folks can say that the laws do not change hearts. But frankly if something is illegal it does sway some to abandon that course. It makes people thing twice about doing something they may later regret.

Here is a key statement from the above paragraph:

In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?

As a former Adventist I do not accept statements of Ellen White as inspired. But I do think she had a lot of statements I would agree with.

The above statement is in line with the biblical role of upholding the right and punishing the wrongdoer.

You describe yourself as a former Adventist, yet you seem to be aligned with the views of the early Adventist pioneers. I wrote my doctoral dissertation about the topic of abortion and discovered that we have deviated from what the original Adventists did believe and from what they practiced. You can read my dissertation online. Here is the link: http://sdaforum.com/page13.html .

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

The issues of temperance and slavery were both addressed by early SDA leaders as moral evils that should be done away with. The issue of temperance is particularly instructive. Here was a divisive moral issue which involved personal freedom.

Here is a statement by Ellen White regarding the role of Adventists in temperance legislation. The principle outlined here is applicable to other issues. We as Christians in a a republic have some role in deciding issues. We should uphold virtue.

In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914

Are Adventists deploring abortion while at the same time doing nothing to restrain this great evil? Folks can say that the laws do not change hearts. But frankly if something is illegal it does sway some to abandon that course. It makes people thing twice about doing something they may later regret.

Here is a key statement from the above paragraph:

In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?

As a former Adventist I do not accept statements of Ellen White as inspired. But I do think she had a lot of statements I would agree with.

The above statement is in line with the biblical role of upholding the right and punishing the wrongdoer.

You describe yourself as a former Adventist, yet you seem to be aligned with the views of the early Adventist pioneers. I wrote my doctoral dissertation about the topic of abortion and discovered that we have deviated from what the original Adventists did believe and from what they practiced. You can read my dissertation online. Here is the link: http://sdaforum.com/page13.html .

Thanks for the link. It should not surprise people when former SDA's have similarities to SDA's. I still tend to hold the Adventist view of death, of hell, and I am sure some other elements as well.

I held to the same views as above while I was an SDA, because that is the role that is outlined for the government in the Scriptures. Since the Bible gives the government a moral role then we cannot take a position against "legislating morality". That is precisely what democratic governments must do.

[teresaq]

there are quite a few statements from ellen white on the sinfulness of bringing children into the world under certain circumstances.

i think too many of us who have brought children into the world, myself included, will have to answer for that on that great day.

Quote:

Those who increase their number of children, when, if they consulted reason, they must know that physical and mental weakness must be their inheritance, are transgressors of the last six precepts of God's law, which specify the duty of man to his fellow-man. They do their part in increasing the degeneracy of the race, and in sinking society lower, thus injuring their neighbor. If God thus regards the rights of neighbors, has he no care in regard to closer and more sacred relationship? If not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice, will he be unmindful of the children born into the world, diseased physically and mentally, suffering in a greater or less degree, all their lives? Will he not call parents to an account, to whom he has given reasoning powers, for putting these higher faculties in the background, and becoming slaves to passion, when, as the result, generations must bear the mark of their physical, mental, and moral deficiencies? {SA 110.1}

there is also this

Quote:

Ere long we are to be brought into strait and trying places, and the many children brought into the world will in mercy be taken away before the time of trouble comes.--Manuscript 152, 1899. (See Child Guidance, pp. 565, 566; Counsels on Health, p. 375.) {3SM 419.2}

[Nic Samojluk]

there are quite a few statements from ellen white on the sinfulness of bringing children into the world under certain circumstances.

i think too many of us who have brought children into the world, myself included, will have to answer for that on that great day.

Quote:

Those who increase their number of children, when, if they consulted reason, they must know that physical and mental weakness must be their inheritance, are transgressors of the last six precepts of God's law, which specify the duty of man to his fellow-man. They do their part in increasing the degeneracy of the race, and in sinking society lower, thus injuring their neighbor. If God thus regards the rights of neighbors, has he no care in regard to closer and more sacred relationship? If not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice, will he be unmindful of the children born into the world, diseased physically and mentally, suffering in a greater or less degree, all their lives? Will he not call parents to an account, to whom he has given reasoning powers, for putting these higher faculties in the background, and becoming slaves to passion, when, as the result, generations must bear the mark of their physical, mental, and moral deficiencies? {SA 110.1}

there is also this

Quote:

Ere long we are to be brought into strait and trying places, and the many children brought into the world will in mercy be taken away before the time of trouble comes.--Manuscript 152, 1899. (See Child Guidance, pp. 565, 566; Counsels on Health, p. 375.) {3SM 419.2}

Teresa,

Thanks for those quotes. My question to you is: Are you suggesting that because some children should have never been conceived, that this means that we have the moral right to dismember and poison the unborn when a female is faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Do you think that Ellen White was advocating the violation of the Sixth Commandment which forbids murder? Suppose you answer this question with a “Yes,” how would you decide which baby is destined to live a life not worth living? How would you choose the babies which should be summarily executed without their consent? Do you think that human beings are wise enough to make such decisions?

Mary, the mother of Jesus was young, poor, single and pregnant at a time when such women risked the chance of being stoned to death. Do you think that it would have been morally justifiable for her to have chosen an abortion? Sometime ago, I confronted a well respected Adventist physician with such a question. I did ask him whether he would have provided an abortion for Mary, and he responded that he would not have hesitated a moment. Do you agree with this kind of thinking?

Consider this: When Adam and Eve sinned, God could have aborted the human race and started all over. God knew that not doing so would cost the life of his Only Begotten Son. Did he opt for aborting the human race? Jesus left the comfort of heaven and the worship of the myriad of angels who were ready to bid his commands. He lowered himself and became a baby for our sake. Contrast this sacrifice with the attitude of those Adventist women who choose to kill their unborn babies for the sake of convenience. Jesus said: “I have come that you may have life.” The women who choose to abort are choosing death instead. Can you see the contrast?

God is the Author of life. So my question is: Who is the author of death and abortion? Could it be that the answer is: Satan, the one described in the Bible as a “murderer from the beginning.” How can we Adventists side with the enemy of life? Are we still the “Remnant” of God, the ones who “keep God’s commandments”? If we justify the breaking of the Sixth Commandment, aren’t we following in the steps of the Catholic Church which altered the true meaning of one of God’s commandments when they substituted Sunday worship for the true Sabbath?

[Nic Samojluk]

The Adventist church in the annual meeting of 1865, in light of questions about the appropriateness of voting, made the following statement.

The act of voting , when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper. We recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.

They upheld the role of the government given by God to uphold justice, humanity and the right.

I agree! Voting for the right moral issues is not only a privilege but a sacred duty in my estimation. Consider what Uriah Smith, the editor of the Adventist Review, said about this and what some of the early Adventist pioneers said about abortion:

Quote:

You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, [6] and Ill show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper. Uriah Smith. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Quoted by P.A. Lorenz. Adventist For Life News, Vol. III, Issue 3. ( n.d.,Heritage Edition): 3.

Quote:

“If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering [8] his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them.” Ellen White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.

Quote:

"Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destuction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime." James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

Quote:

"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 God's book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children." J.N. Andrews. "A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin" Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Nov. 30, 1869): 184.

Read More: http://sdaforum.com/page114.html

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Looks like you guys have carried forward quite well. There were only 10-12 pages last time I was there. Now it's on page 43 I think.

Richard,

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that this blog is on again. Nevertheless, can you tell me what happened to all the missing pages? All the pages between #19 and #50 or # 52 if I recall are missing. They have disappeared into cyber space. Notice that when you reappeared on this blog you were surprised that we had moved from page 12 to 43.

Moreover, do you have any assurance that whatever we start posting again will not be swallowed by a black hole again? This blog was moved twice from its original location, and now a major portion of what took us endless hours to build has evaporated into the stratosphere. What is going on? Can you from your privileged position enlighten us on this strange phenomenon?

I think I can shed some light on the subject:

I started two different threads dealing with this issue. One of them got too political, and they moved it to the politics forum. That one has the stuff you are thinking disappeared. This thread here never was moved. Tall73 found it and started posting on it, and that's when I notified you.

The thread I was talking about going from page 12-43 is the one at Revival Sermons website.

Hope this helps.

[Nic Samojluk]

Hi,

The issue of demography where Muslims and others will conquer Christianity through its unbridled mass population production sounds similar to the idea that the world will experience an energy crisis and other doomsday warnings. The unbalanced numbers between 'the good and the bad' will most be evident at Armageddon and yet will end with God's final victory.

The Jewish does not believe that abortion is equivalent to murder or the taking of life while Roman Catholics are clearly upholds that abortion is homicidal sinful murder, while on the other hand Seventh Day Adventist official standpoints are not clear, of whether they are on the Jewish side or the Roman Catholics. (Please correct me if I am mistaken)

Applying the word sin to abortion can be somewhat vague and may denote sin as in smoking, drinking or other vices. Lightly abusing one's health is also sin as committing mass murder according to Biblical standards, but in general, people would not be that alarmed to learn that someone's skipping meals to trim the body in comparison to the existence of a serial mutilation killer.

Is abortion murderous killing as in violation of 'Thou shalt not murder' in the ten commandments or is it a mere ethical issue of violating body health or perhaps even further, where abortions becomes as innocently simple as the blowing of one's nose?

God bless,

Raphael

Raphael,

Regarding the Adventist position on abortion, I would like to mention the fact that I spent several years investigating this topic and chose said question as the theme of my doctoral dissertation which you can read online at http://sdaforum.com/page13.html . The Adventist position is pro-choice, which is an euphemism for the following policy: Abortion as a birth control method is wrong, but if a woman or girl is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, then abortion is justified under many circumstances such as rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the pregnant woman or girl’s “mental health” is affected by the unexpected pregnancy.

Do you see any difference between this position and the position of those who defend the pro-abortion policy? If you examine this carefully, you will probably agree with me that the pro-abortion and the pro-choice position are almost the same enchilada with a slightly different name. Consider the following: Have you ever encountered a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy who is not temporarily mentally depressed? Do you think that such a woman would find it extremely difficult to locate an abortionist willing to agree with her that the unwanted pregnancy is in fact affecting her mental health?

Now, as far as your last question is concerned, think about this. Sin is defined as the violation of the Decalogue. The Sixth Commandment forbids the taking of human life. The question then would be: Is the unborn baby a human being or not? If it is not, then what is it? Is it an appendix of the woman’s body? Certainly not, because it has its own DNA, and by the time most abortions are performed you have a developing heart which is pumping blood throughout the tiny developing baby's body. In addition, by the time an abortion is performed, said developing baby probably has lower and higher extremities, a head and a torso.

This is the reason the attending nurse must reconstruct the aborted baby’s dismembered body to make sure there are no missing parts remaining in the uterus which could threaten the life of the woman. And this is the reason the partial-birth abortion was invented, because then the baby can be killed as it is in the process of being born. The head is crushed, and the baby’s organs can be harvested for transplantation purposes and thus save the live of other babies which are wanted. The life of the unwanted baby is taken in order to extend the life of a wanted baby.

Sin is also defined as missing the mark. Intentionally missing the mark is sin. If you possess the ability to do what God wants you to do, but you intentionally avoid hitting the bull’s eye, this is considered to be sinful. Jesus said: “I have come that you may have life.” The Bible orders us to “Choose life.” When we intentionally choose death, we miss the mark, and it is a sin. Women faced with an unwanted pregnancy do have the option of giving the baby for adoption. When they choose death over life for the baby, they violate God’s Commandment.

Our early Adventist pioneers did not hesitate in condemning the practice of abortion as a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue and did not vacillate in describing abortion as plain “murder.” Why have we veered from that clear position? Because of profit. Five years ago five of our hospitals were reported by our “Ministry” magazine as offering elective abortions to their patients. Did you know that the founder of over twenty abortion clinics in California was an Adventist who graduated from Loma Linda University in 1964?

His original interest was to become a SDA minister. He switched to medicine, got involved in the abortion business, became a millionaire, left the Adventist Church, recently retired, and sold his lucrative business to another Adventist who became a celebrity when three of his children’s families perished in an airplane crash. The media, including the Adventist media, did report the tragedy, but for some reason failed to mention his ownership of the abortion clinics. A friend of mine sent me a link from a pro-life publisher with the story. I shared the story with some of the names I have in my Email list, and got the most severe reprimand from my pastor.

I can say much more, and I did share with the readers of this blog much more before, but somehow, mysteriously, dozens of pages were swallowed by a black hole from this blog. The blog got moved two times, and reappeared the other day. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happens again.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Richard' date='

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that this blog is on again. Nevertheless, can you tell me what happened to all the missing pages? All the pages between #19 and #50 or # 52 if I recall are missing. They have disappeared into cyber space. Notice that when you reappeared on this blog you were surprised that we had moved from page 12 to 43.

Moreover, do you have any assurance that whatever we start posting again will not be swallowed by a black hole again? This blog was moved twice from its original location, and now a major portion of what took us endless hours to build has evaporated into the stratosphere. What is going on? Can you from your privileged position enlighten us on this strange phenomenon?[/quote']

I think I can shed some light on the subject:

I started two different threads dealing with this issue. One of them got too political, and they moved it to the politics forum. That one has the stuff you are thinking disappeared. This thread here never was moved. Tall73 found it and started posting on it, and that's when I notified you.

The thread I was talking about going from page 12-43 is the one at Revival Sermons website.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for claryfying this for me.

[doug yowell]

The issues of temperance and slavery were both addressed by early SDA leaders as moral evils that should be done away with. The issue of temperance is particularly instructive. Here was a divisive moral issue which involved personal freedom.

Here is a statement by Ellen White regarding the role of Adventists in temperance legislation. The principle outlined here is applicable to other issues. We as Christians in a a republic have some role in deciding issues. We should uphold virtue.

In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914

Are Adventists deploring abortion while at the same time doing nothing to restrain this great evil? Folks can say that the laws do not change hearts. But frankly if something is illegal it does sway some to abandon that course. It makes people thing twice about doing something they may later regret.

Here is a key statement from the above paragraph:

In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?

As a former Adventist I do not accept statements of Ellen White as inspired. But I do think she had a lot of statements I would agree with.

The above statement is in line with the biblical role of upholding the right and punishing the wrongdoer.

Tall.That is some good stuff you're putting up. Clear,accurate,logical,reasonable,and full of common sense. Thanks for the historical footwork. As a former,how is it that you have so much interest in what your former says and does,particularly on this subject? To my knowledge, no one has ever opened up this entire EGW quote from 1914.How'd you run across it? By the way, do you consider this EGW quote to be inspired (or just a lucky guess)?

[doug yowell]

The Bible indicates that God knows us before we are in our mother's womb. Scientifically we know that life begins at conception. The cells start multiplying on their own have their own DNA. I don't see abortion as a black and white issue. I think the way a civil government deals with it should have no bearing at all on how the church deals with it. I actually favor the civil government permitting abortion and the church prohibiting it.

Shane, let me see if I understand you correctly. You recognize that the unborn is a distinctive human being (DNA). You favor the governmental policy of legalizing the killing of those human beings (shades of Haman?) while at the same time supporting the church's right to condemn the practice. Given that the members of said church are the ones who help determine governmental policy how are we to understand, with any sense of clarity, exactly what the moral position is?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

there are quite a few statements from ellen white on the sinfulness of bringing children into the world under certain circumstances.

i think too many of us who have brought children into the world, myself included, will have to answer for that on that great day.

Quote:

Those who increase their number of children, when, if they consulted reason, they must know that physical and mental weakness must be their inheritance, are transgressors of the last six precepts of God's law, which specify the duty of man to his fellow-man. They do their part in increasing the degeneracy of the race, and in sinking society lower, thus injuring their neighbor. If God thus regards the rights of neighbors, has he no care in regard to closer and more sacred relationship? If not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice, will he be unmindful of the children born into the world, diseased physically and mentally, suffering in a greater or less degree, all their lives? Will he not call parents to an account, to whom he has given reasoning powers, for putting these higher faculties in the background, and becoming slaves to passion, when, as the result, generations must bear the mark of their physical, mental, and moral deficiencies? {SA 110.1}

there is also this

Quote:

Ere long we are to be brought into strait and trying places, and the many children brought into the world will in mercy be taken away before the time of trouble comes.--Manuscript 152, 1899. (See Child Guidance, pp. 565, 566; Counsels on Health, p. 375.) {3SM 419.2}

Teresa,

Thanks for those quotes. My question to you is: Are you suggesting that because some children should have never been conceived, that this means that we have the moral right to dismember and poison the unborn when a female is faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Do you think that Ellen White was advocating the violation of the Sixth Commandment which forbids murder? Suppose you answer this question with a “Yes,” how would you decide which baby is destined to live a life not worth living? How would you choose the babies which should be summarily executed without their consent? Do you think that human beings are wise enough to make such decisions?

what saith the Lord?

or what saith nic samojiluk?

the guidelines are given for when it is a sin to bring a child into the world. we will be held accountable for that. we will also be accountable for attempting to legislate morality on the world.

if you believe it is a sin to have an abortion do not have one.

but we are not to try to force your morality on another. those are papal tactics that are come straight from satan.

[Nic Samojluk]

what saith the Lord?

or what saith nic samojiluk?

the guidelines are given for when it is a sin to bring a child into the world. we will be held accountable for that. we will also be accountable for attempting to legislate morality on the world.

if you believe it is a sin to have an abortion do not have one.

but we are not to try to force your morality on another. those are papal tactics that are come straight from satan.

Teresa,

You asked the following question: “What saith the Lord?” Read Exodus 20: 13:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"You shall not murder."

How is murder defined? The Bible defines murder as the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Do you disagree with this definition? Do you have a better one? Read how the Psalmist defined murder:

New Living Translation (©2007)

“They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters. By sacrificing them to the idols of Canaan, they polluted the land with murder.” [Psalms 106:38]

Have you read what our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” say as the reason for Jesus death? Here is how the death of our Savior is explained:

“God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.”

Do you believe that Jesus died to give us the freedom to do what he forbade: to kill our own children? Is this the reason Jesus died? Jesus said:

International Standard Version (©2008)

“The thief comes only to steal, slaughter, and destroy. I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” [John 10:10]

How can the unborn have an abundant life Jesus came for if we dismember their tiny bodies before they have had a chance to take their first breath?

I have a question for you: If Jesus came to give us the right to choose to kill our children, then perhaps he also died to give us the right to rape, steal, and to sexually abuse little children! We are indeed free to do those things and even to shoot at the president, but there are serious consequences if we do. Some have tried and ended up in jail or the electric chair.

A child who has been sexually abused may eventually heal and live an almost normal life; this privilege is denied to those children who are aborted!

We live in a democratic country, which means that we are responsible for the laws which rule our lives and society. Besides, the duty of the government is to protect the lives and property of the people living under its jurisdiction. We have the right and the duty to vote for candidates who will generate the right laws for our country. God will hold us responsible for this sacred duty.

By the way, I am not planning to have an abortion. Of course, this is easy for me to say, since I am a male. Nevertheless, I am aware that it was a group of nine male Justices of the Court who declared the open season for the genocide of the unborn. Men have the right to undo the wrong decisions of other men!

[Guest]

Amen Nic!

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane, let me see if I understand you correctly. You recognize that the unborn is a distinctive human being (DNA). You favor the governmental policy of legalizing the killing of those human beings (shades of Haman?) while at the same time supporting the church's right to condemn the practice. Given that the members of said church are the ones who help determine governmental policy how are we to understand, with any sense of clarity, exactly what the moral position is?

Good question, Doug! I am waiting for an answer shane! He must have a good reason for his position which I am eager to learn.

[Dr. Shane]

First, I believe in a separation of church and state. I believe that most PG, PG-13 and R rated movies are sinful too but do not support a ban on them. I believe smoking is sinful but do not support a ban on tobacco. I believe having sexual intercourse with my wife while she is menstruating is sinful too, but do not support a law banning the practice.

But beyond that little, old-fashioned idea of the separation of church and state, there is also the data that shows nations and states allow for legal abortion and restrict it actually have fewer abortions than nations that completely ban abortions. Since I actually want to reduce the number of abortions, I support that which works to do that.

[Dr. Shane]

Just a little note to no one particular...

There are a lot of posts in this thread that are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long for many to read.

If you don't want others to skip your posts, keep them brief and to the point. Otherwise many members, lurkers and surfers are just going to skip over them and read nothing you post at all.

[Nic Samojluk]

First, I believe in a separation of church and state. I believe that most PG, PG-13 and R rated movies are sinful too but do not support a ban on them. I believe smoking is sinful but do not support a ban on tobacco. I believe having sexual intercourse with my wife while she is menstruating is sinful too, but do not support a law banning the practice.

But beyond that little, old-fashioned idea of the separation of church and state, there is also the data that shows nations and states allow for legal abortion and restrict it actually have fewer abortions than nations that completely ban abortions. Since I actually want to reduce the number of abortions, I support that which works to do that.

Shane,

You state that “there is also the data that shows nations and states allow for legal abortion and restrict it actually have fewer abortions than nations that completely ban abortions.”

Can give us the source of this information? Is it from a reliable organization? Is it coming by any chance from the Guttmacher Institute, which was created by Planned Parenthood, the organization dedicated to the killing of the unborn? If “yes” then let me ask you: Would you trust data provided by the Tobacco industry regarding the risk connected with smoking?

Besides, do you think that smoking, and pornography are the moral equivalent to the violation of the Sixth Commandment? Smoking shortens the life of the one addicted to tobacco by four or five years, while abortion by 80 or 90.

[doug yowell]

First, I believe in a separation of church and state. I believe that most PG, PG-13 and R rated movies are sinful too but do not support a ban on them. I believe smoking is sinful but do not support a ban on tobacco. I believe having sexual intercourse with my wife while she is menstruating is sinful too, but do not support a law banning the practice.

But beyond that little, old-fashioned idea of the separation of church and state, there is also the data that shows nations and states allow for legal abortion and restrict it actually have fewer abortions than nations that completely ban abortions. Since I actually want to reduce the number of abortions, I support that which works to do that.

OK Shane, that's subtle enough. If having,uuuuh,intimate relations with a woman (say,your wife)on,uuuuh,certain days of the calendar,would result in that woman's (say, your wife)instant death,would you be willing to reconsider supporting a law banning that practice? If so,on what grounds? If not,do you support the banning of ANY practice?If so, why? If not, why not? Just one more,question. IF you found out that the data showed that banning abortion actually REDUCED the number of abortions, would you be willing to support anti-abortion legislation??

[Steve Billiter]

Is anyone going to suffer and die if we ban tobacco and alcohol?How about porn? Gambling? If one does not support a ban on tobacco, etc., then it seems that person supports such, there is no neutrality, not really. It a alcohol temperance movement comes up again, do we support that or stick our head in the sand?

I support a ban on all sin, keep your eyes pointed towards the clouds, for the One who is coming who will ban ALL sin!

Rev 1:7 Behold, He comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.