Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[karl]

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??

Good to see you here, Doug.

Why do we need secular data for spiritual things??

If you found out that the random murder of street punks reduced teen pregnancies (look out, Bronson) would you be in favor of it? I wouldn't.

Abortion is just plain murder. We need to be against it because it is murder, not because it affects statistics.

Karl Sandberg

[Nic Samojluk]

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??

Good question! I'll be watching for Shane's response!

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Adventists have been in the forefront in the fight against smoking. We do this because we want smokers to quit and live longer. At the same time we Adventists remain silent about abortion which deprives the unborn of life at its inception. If we want people to live longer, why do we justify the killing of the unborn?

Does this make sense? I have sent pro-life donations to the General Conference twice, and my pro-life money was resturned with the following note: The church does not have a pro-life program. If we do not have a pro-life program seems to indicate that we side with the pro-death one.

[tall73]

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}

In this quote Ellen White is not telling folks to have abortions. She is telling them not to have sex.

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?

[tall73]

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.

The government is given a moral role by God:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If the government does not legislate morality they are shirking their God-given duty. In a republic we have some role in the government. And therefore we have some role in the laws enacted.

There is a difference between moral and religious legislation.

[there buster]

Quote:

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

But of course that is not necessary to outlaw abortion. The secular state has an interest in protecting its citizens. Indeed, a major purpose of the existence of the state is to protect its citizens. We have all sorts of laws that protect citizens from harm. The 'forcing your morality' argument is a straw man.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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??

Good to see you here, Doug.

Why do we need secular data for spiritual things??

If you found out that the random murder of street punks reduced teen pregnancies (look out, Bronson) would you be in favor of it? I wouldn't.

Abortion is just plain murder. We need to be against it because it is murder, not because it affects statistics.

Karl Sandberg

Great to hear your voice again, Karl. I've missed you. Phelen doesn't have the same effect on me any more. But why do we need secular data for spiritual things? Beats me! But I must say that your attempt to sneak reason,common sense,and Biblical values into an important moral question like this is very disturbing!! You sound just like one of those fanatical (and dangerous) Christians!! On the other hand I think you may be on to something with your random murder of street punks idea. Just think, data shows that street punks are responsable for a large number of unplanned teen pregnancies. Random (or systematic)murder would eliminate the root cause of those pregnancies thus lowering the abortion rate.In addition,this policy would serve to stem the number of aspiring(apprentice) street punks thereby lowering the number of abortions even further. Studies show that channeling planned murders into random murders of street punks also reduces the need for a significant number of unnecessary murders thus the overall crime rate would be significantly impacted! Hey, I think we should pass this by the White House!

[teresaq]

Quote:

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

But of course that is not necessary to outlaw abortion. The secular state has an interest in protecting its citizens. Indeed, a major purpose of the existence of the state is to protect its citizens. We have all sorts of laws that protect citizens from harm. The 'forcing your morality' argument is a straw man.

when ellen white was working for temperance who all did it involve?

just the persons drinking?

or why do we outlaw most drugs?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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.

The government is given a moral role by God:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If the government does not legislate morality they are shirking their God-given duty. In a republic we have some role in the government. And therefore we have some role in the laws enacted.

There is a difference between moral and religious legislation.

which morals and who decides?

if we are going to legislate morality then how about outlawing divorce?

and lets put everyone in jail who has an affair.

we can also go back to jailing people for sexual acts performed by husbands and wives in the privacy of their bedroom,

ohhh and by the way, lets also jail people for having sex before marriage.

surely there is many more that we can add to the list.

or are we being selective? only what bothers me personally, not what doesnt bother me?

we can also decide when it is appropriate for a couple starting to date when they can hold hands, and where, then how many dates before they can kiss, and where....

[there buster]

Quote:

when ellen white was working for temperance who all did it involve?

just the persons drinking?

or why do we outlaw most drugs?

all good questions, but not relevant to my points about abortion.

[Nic Samojluk]

In this quote Ellen White is not telling folks to have abortions. She is telling them not to have sex.

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?

Yes, indeed! A very good observation. You are getting taller and taller in my estimation.

[Nic Samojluk]

The government is given a moral role by God:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

If the government does not legislate morality they are shirking their God-given duty. In a republic we have some role in the government. And therefore we have some role in the laws enacted.

There is a difference between moral and religious legislation.

It looks like you are hitting the nail every time! Keep it up!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

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

But of course that is not necessary to outlaw abortion. The secular state has an interest in protecting its citizens. Indeed, a major purpose of the existence of the state is to protect its citizens. We have all sorts of laws that protect citizens from harm. The 'forcing your morality' argument is a straw man.

I agree! God clearly states that we must choose life and he forbids taking the life of others. Choosing death is not only a wrong choice, it is also a sin against the Creator. Choosing death for myself is sinful, but taking the life of someone else is murder.

If we do not have the right to impose morality on others, then what right the government has to punish those who steal and rape? Those are moral actions. The same is true about perjury. Some people are in jail for merely lying. Murdering has more serious consequences than telling a lie. Society does regulate morality, and immoral actions are being dealt with punishment.

[Nic Samojluk]

which morals and who decides?

if we are going to legislate morality then how about outlawing divorce?

and lets put everyone in jail who has an affair.

we can also go back to jailing people for sexual acts performed by husbands and wives in the privacy of their bedroom,

ohhh and by the way, lets also jail people for having sex before marriage.

surely there is many more that we can add to the list.

or are we being selective? only what bothers me personally, not what doesnt bother me?

we can also decide when it is appropriate for a couple starting to date when they can hold hands, and where, then how many dates before they can kiss, and where....

Teresa,

You have made some good suggestions like outlawing adultery, divorce, and fornication. I have a question for you: Do you think that there is any chance that modern society would vote for outlawing these immoral actions? If not, then what is the point of even discussing such alternatives? If the people were ready for regulating such immoral behavior, I would readily vote for them. The reason? I am being taxed for the consequences of such crazy behavior.

Abortion, on the other hand was regulated for thousands of years with good results. Why, because the results of murder are more serious than the other sins. A victim of rape, for example can eventually heal and lead an almost normal life. This privilege is taken away from the victim of abortion. Nevertheless, we do regulate rape and punish rapists. So tell me why does society look the other way when innocent babies are murdered for the sake of convenience?

But there is something more serious here. Should not the Adventist Church stick to a higher norm than the rest of society? How come some of our hospitals and some of our members are engaged in the lucrative business of killing babies? Where is the higher Hyppocratic norm which said “Do not harm”? If the church approves the murder of innocent babies in violation of God’s Decalogue, then what do we need the church for? Aren’t we called to be God’s “Remnant,” those who keep God’s Commandments?

If God severely punished the sin of fornication at Baal Peor, as we studied last week, then do you think that the Lord will ignore our sin of killing babies today?

[there buster]

Quote:

If we do not have the right to impose morality on others, then what right the government has to punish those who steal and rape? Those are moral actions. The same is true about perjury. Some people are in jail for merely lying. Murdering has more serious consequences than telling a lie. Society does regulate morality, and immoral actions are being dealt with punishment.

But you're missing the point. None of these laws need a moral justification. The actions are punished not because they are immoral, but because they are destructive to an orderly society. We do not outlaw all lying, even though it is clearly immoral. But attempting to punish all lies would require government so intrusive, and would be so often abused, that such a law would itself be destructive to orderly society.

While there may be moral support for many laws, there is no need to 'legislate morality.'

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: there buster

Quote:

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

But of course that is not necessary to outlaw abortion. The secular state has an interest in protecting its citizens. Indeed, a major purpose of the existence of the state is to protect its citizens. We have all sorts of laws that protect citizens from harm. The 'forcing your morality' argument is a straw man.

I agree! God clearly states that we must choose life and he forbids taking the life of others. ...

actually it is not a straw man argument. it is based on knowing the difference between how God operates and how satan operates, a subject in itself. if we do not have this clear in our minds we can end up with satans character in the service of God.

the bibles only reference to the taking of life is that outside of the womb.

God never, through Jesus and later the apostles, addressed abortion. it wasnt until the church was drifting from the Lord and apostatizing that homosexuality, and abortion started being addressed.

the bibles directions for the unborn were specifically for its health and spiritual well-being. but all other directions and laws apply to the born,

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

which morals and who decides?

if we are going to legislate morality then how about outlawing divorce?

and lets put everyone in jail who has an affair.

we can also go back to jailing people for sexual acts performed by husbands and wives in the privacy of their bedroom,

ohhh and by the way, lets also jail people for having sex before marriage.

surely there is many more that we can add to the list.

or are we being selective? only what bothers me personally, not what doesnt bother me?

we can also decide when it is appropriate for a couple starting to date when they can hold hands, and where, then how many dates before they can kiss, and where....

Teresa,

You have made some good suggestions like outlawing adultery, divorce, and fornication. ... If the people were ready for regulating such immoral behavior, I would readily vote for them. The reason? I am being taxed for the consequences of such crazy behavior.

yes, this is the very mentality of which i reference.

it isnt just about abortion or homosexuality, it goes far deeper. it is about the need to control ones fellowman.

[BobRyan]

But you're missing the point. None of these laws need a moral justification. The actions are punished not because they are immoral, but because they are destructive to an orderly society. We do not outlaw all lying, even though it is clearly immoral. But attempting to punish all lies would require government so intrusive, and would be so often abused, that such a law would itself be destructive to orderly society.

While there may be moral support for many laws, there is no need to 'legislate morality.'

Correction.

"morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors."

Hint -- we legislate that "all the time".

What you really mean to say is that not ALL rules for what is right - can be legislated. Wash the dishes after every meal, be considerate of others, honor your parents...

So when it "really matters" we do legislate morality - -

Slavery and abortion - vs - "the valule of human life".

prohibition (declaring that we have no right to drug abuse)

The value and sanctity of marriage

etc.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Teresa,

You have made some good suggestions like outlawing adultery, divorce, and fornication. I have a question for you: Do you think that there is any chance that modern society would vote for outlawing these immoral actions? If not, then what is the point of even discussing such alternatives? If the people were ready for regulating such immoral behavior, I would readily vote for them. The reason? I am being taxed for the consequences of such crazy behavior.

[teresaq]

prohibition (declaring that we have no right to drug abuse)

is drug abuse a private matter or does it risk others safety and rights?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

prohibition (declaring that we have no right to drug abuse)

is drug abuse a private matter or does it risk others safety and rights?

That depends on who you talk to,Teresa. Those who think that drug use is a personal matter and are convinced that it affects no one other than the user will argue that criminalizing drug use is a violation of their Constitutional and moral rights.Those who see a negative effect of free drug use on their society will argue that the overall detrimental result of that drug use outweighs the personal rights claim of those who cause the negative effects. Since both sides cannot be right,who gets to make the final call?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

If we do not have the right to impose morality on others, then what right the government has to punish those who steal and rape? Those are moral actions. The same is true about perjury. Some people are in jail for merely lying. Murdering has more serious consequences than telling a lie. Society does regulate morality, and immoral actions are being dealt with punishment.

But you're missing the point. None of these laws need a moral justification. The actions are punished not because they are immoral, but because they are destructive to an orderly society. We do not outlaw all lying, even though it is clearly immoral. But attempting to punish all lies would require government so intrusive, and would be so often abused, that such a law would itself be destructive to orderly society.

While there may be moral support for many laws, there is no need to 'legislate morality.'

There buster,

You must have a different definition for morality. My dictionary defines morality as “principles or rules of conduct.” Based on this definition, you are the one who is “missing the point.” Perhaps, if you can share with me your definition of morality, then we might try to understand each other. Based on my dictionary definition of morality, the government does legislate morality and for this reason, it should legislate the murder of the unborn.

The role of the government is to have a set of laws which tend to protect the life and property of all the human beings living under its jurisdiction. If you agree with me that the unborn belong to the human race, then it follows that the state must protect the life of unborn babies. This was the case for over two millennia when physicians were required to be bound by the Hippocratic Oath which stated that doctors would “do no harm.” The duty of doctors was to heal—not to kill.

This has been altered by society. If you believe that physicians have the right to kill some and heal others, then you are living under a very confusing moral system. What is legal is not necessarily moral. There is a higher law which will one day stare us in the face. It is true that the government cannot outlaw all lying. It would require a policeman for each human being; nevertheless, outlawing murder is reasonable and necessary for an orderly society.

[Dr. Shane]

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?

I have provided this information before and I believe you have rejected it. I don't think we need to play that game again. I have read it from various sources and don't buy into giant world-wide conspiracies.

[Dr. Shane]

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??

I use to support a ban on abortion. In fact, I have been very active in pro-life causes for many years. I am very much anti-abortion. However I have learned that banning abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions. I live on the Texas-Mexico border, am bilingual and get the Mexican news in Spanish all the time. Mexico has no less abortions than the US and may actually have more. And the US is not a nation that discourages abortions like I believe it should. If the US were to discourage abortions our abortion numbers would quickly fall below those in Mexico where abortion is illegal.

I financially support Care Net. That is how we should be fighting abortion. Not by using the civil government. We are not Catholics. Support what works - crisis pregnancy centers - and forget what doesn't work - civil government banning abortion.

[Nic Samojluk]

actually it is not a straw man argument. it is based on knowing the difference between how God operates and how satan operates, a subject in itself. if we do not have this clear in our minds we can end up with satans character in the service of God.

the bibles only reference to the taking of life is that outside of the womb.

God never, through Jesus and later the apostles, addressed abortion. it wasnt until the church was drifting from the Lord and apostatizing that homosexuality, and abortion started being addressed.

the bibles directions for the unborn were specifically for its health and spiritual well-being. but all other directions and laws apply to the born,

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Teresa,

You made the following statement: “The bible’s only reference to the taking of life is that outside of the womb.”

My answer is: That depends on which version of the Bible you are using. Consider the following 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. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, ...” [Exodus 21:22-23]

It seems to me that this biblical passage is very clear. The monetary penalty was in the case of a premature birth and the death penalty for the death of the unborn baby. Can you see this text saying something different?

You argue that Jesus never talked about abortion. True! Neither did Jesus condemn slavery. Would you conclude that I have the right to buy a few slaves today? Jesus never condemned polygamy. Does this mean that I can marry another woman besides my wife? As you can see, the arguments from silence do not prove anything!

I am glad you cited Matthew 25 because in it there is this statement: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Can you think about any group of human being more deserving of the “the least” label than the unborn?