What I Learned About Abortion & the Adventist Church

[doug yowell]

[[

The only restriction I detect for abortions on demand is counseling and three days waiting period. Do you think that requiring a woman to wait three days before the killing takes place is something that will significantly reduce the number of abortions?

?

Yes, I think such a requirement would reduce the abortion rate. I think it has been proven that a little time to think about what an abortion really is causes some think more clearly and subsequently change their minds. Significantly reduce the number? Nope.

[Dr. Shane]

The only restriction I detect for abortions on demand is counseling and three days waiting period.

Those are both significant restrictions. Limiting the procedure to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is a significant restriction too. These restrictions save more lives than the draconian abortion bans of Mexico and Argentina.

Most of these women are scared and being pressured by their boyfriends to get an abortion. In the Roman-Catholic controlled Mexico and Argentina, the women are rushed off to get their illegal abortion and no body knows about it. In nations where religious liberty is cherished, the girl receives pre-abortion counseling where she is given her options. She is told about adoption options and about public assistance available to her if she keeps the child. Not surprisingly, there are a lot less abortions in the land of the free than in the papist-controlled parts of the world.

[Nic Samojluk]

These restrictions save more lives than the draconian abortion bans of Mexico and Argentina.

[doug yowell]

Interesting,Nic. The % of pregnancies aborted,if accurate, should clearly indicate whether or not abortion bans decrease the number of abortions.Thus proving once again, that if studies validate common sense they weren't neccessary in the first place!

P.S. Where's Argentina?

[Dr. Shane]

Can you explain why these statistics seem to contradict your theory? Where is your alleged lower abortion rate for Germany?

First, it is not my theory. It is a simply observation of the facts. The statistics you listed are a percentage of pregnancies that ended in abortion. The statistics I referenced were the number of abortions as a ratio to the number of women of child-bearing age. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

We cannot compare the number of abortions to the number of pregnancies in countries where abortion is banned. The reason is simple. In order to do this we have to know how many pregnancies there were. Girls that have illegal abortions do not always go to a doctor to discover they are pregnant. Thus their pregnancies are never counted. The abortions being counted in the statistics you posted are legal abortions. For example: Mexico's abortion rate is listed as .09% which is simply reflecting the number of medical abortions performed legally.

One of the reasons Germany and The Netherlands have low abortion rates is because of sex education and wide use of birth control. A lot of girls are not getting pregnant in the first place.

Your statistics are not without value. Compare Germany 14.4% and The Netherlands 13.5% with the United States 22.6%. Germany's and The Netherlands' restrictions on abortions are obviously doing more than what in the US is mostly abortion-on-demand.

[Nic Samojluk]

First, it is not my theory. It is a simply observation of the facts. The statistics you listed are a percentage of pregnancies that ended in abortion. The statistics I referenced were the number of abortions as a ratio to the number of women of child-bearing age. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Unlike the leaky oil well in the Gulf, the "facts" you speak of I never ever heard of before. It's up to you to back them up instead of the readers.

Due diligence... should be required of *everyone* posting.

[Dr. Shane]

How can I verify this if you adamantly refuse to provide the reference for the information you are getting from the Internet?

[Neil D]

...or is it about being too lazy to google for yourself......?

[doug yowell]

[

One of the reasons Germany and The Netherlands have low abortion rates is because of sex education and wide use of birth control. A lot of girls are not getting pregnant in the first place.

.

So it seems you're really comparing the abortion stats of women who don't get pregnant with those who do? Girls who aren't pregnant don't generally seek abortions or abortion counseling.So those statistics would, of course, favor countries where fewer women get pregnant thereby lowering the abortion rate.

[Dr. Shane]

Absolutely. When looking at the abortion issue we generally are looking at how many abortions occur as a ratio to how many women of child-bearing age there are. A big part of reducing abortion is providing sexual education and affordable access to birth control. It also includes providing education and child care for single mothers so that teenage girls will be more likely to keep their babies knowing that they will not be trapped in poverty.

The Roman Catholic thinking is simply to force every woman that gets pregnant to give birth to the child.

[Nic Samojluk]

I have no secretes. Google is not a secret.

You are right! “Google is not a secret.” Nevertheless, when you cite some information from the Internet, I need to read it within its proper context. If I am prevented from seeing what you are quoting, I have no way of determining whether the information you are providing is reliable or not.

Have you looked at the number of references listed for the following topics on Google?

Mexico abortion rates: “4,690,000 results”

Argentina abortion rates: “860,000 results”

Germany abortion rates: “16,200,000 results"

U.S. abortion rates: “4,390,000 results”

My question to you is: When you cite the abortion rate for Mexico, for example, do you expect me to wade through 4,690,000 references until I locate the statistic you are referring to?

Do you have an idea how long it would take for me to locate the reference you are citing? Have you ever figured out how long it would take to simply click on 4,690,000 links?

Is it reasonable for you to demand this kind of investment in time before I am able to access the document you are citing and thus manage to read the information in its proper context when it would take less than a minute for you to document your sources?

You seem to be extremely unreasonable, and unless you grant that I am asking from you something very simple, I will have no option but to ignore your comments from now on!

[Nic Samojluk]

A general reply in support of my favorite search engine....Google!!! It is the easiest way of checking on facts, opinions, etc. As for abortion stats, it can't get any easier, state country or what ever. I like shane's answers to those wanting his sources, look and research for your self....or is it more about the desire to argue about the subject!!! (tsk-tsk)

Read my response to Shane above!

[Nic Samojluk]

...or is it about being too lazy to google for yourself......?

Read my response to shane above!

[Dr. Shane]

My question to you is: When you cite the abortion rate for Mexico, for example, do you expect me to wade through 4,690,000 references until I locate the statistic you are referring to?

No wading should be required. It isn't as if each link is going to have statistics from different studies. You will discover quite quickly the same statistics appearing in site after site. Only three sources are required to make the statistics considered common knowledge. I am quite sure that in those 4,690,000 sites you will find the same set of statistics repeated more than three times.

Beware! You are setting yourself up to be in a position where you are going to have to admit you are wrong. Not everyone has the character required to eat humble pie. I do. I have eaten it many times. In fact, I even ate it on this issue. I once believed like you but when I saw I was wrong, I ate the humble pie. It didn't taste so bad either.

Once you discover the same statistics quoted in at least three places, you will need to admit you are wrong. Mexico's abortion rate is public knowledge and those making reference to it do not need to cite sources.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is one story, which I suspect Nic has already read because it would have been in the top of his list from the Google search "Mexico abortion rates". Using Nic's search, I found Mexico's abortion stats three times on just the first page of results!

Mexico's Abortion Laws

Quote:

According to a 2009 study by the Colegio de México, the Mexico office of the Population Council, and the Guttmacher Institute, 17% of Mexican women who got abortions in 2006 were treated in public hospitals for complications...

Now Brother Nic would like us to believe there is a giant, world-wide conspiracy with the Guttmacher Institute making up numbers. Here we have the Guttmacher Institute doing a study with the "Colegio de Mexico" (an esteemed Mexican university) and the Mexico office of Population Council (a non-profit organization). It is true that the Guttmacher Institute does a lot of these studies. However they team up with other organizations like universities, non-profits and even government agencies like a nation's department of health. So, if Guttmacher is behind a vast, world-wide conspiracy, they have drug a lot of other organizations and institutions into it and have never been exposed. Pretty hard to swallow the vast, world-wide conspiracy.

[Nic Samojluk]

Common knowledge is defined as a fact that can be found in at least three sources. The standard practice among the educated people I associate with is not to ask for sources when discussing common knowledge.

[Nic Samojluk]

The facts are so abundant, anyone doing a Google search can find them. Just try some searches like this "Netherlands > abortion rate" "Germany > abortion rate" "Mexico > abortion rate" "Argentina > abortion rate" At least three sources will provide the same data.

[Dr. Shane]

How can you argue that legalizing abortion with certain restrictions tends to reduce the number of abortions?

Because I am intellectually honest. I don't bury my head in the sand. I don't compare apples with oranges. I care more about saving unborn babies than I do about advancing the pope's agenda. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am not a Catholic. I am Protestant. The facts mean more to me than papal bulls.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

How can you argue that legalizing abortion with certain restrictions tends to reduce the number of abortions?

Because I am intellectually honest. I don't bury my head in the sand. I don't compare apples with oranges. I care more about saving unborn babies than I do about advancing the pope's agenda. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am not a Catholic. I am Protestant. The facts mean more to me than papal bulls.

Real honesty demands that you face the facts I submitted to you. You ignored them and gave me platitudes. What does being a member of a particular religion has to do with the facts of abortion. The facts of abortion do not change simply because you look at them as a member of a particular denomination.

Notice what happened following the legalization of abortion in Germany in 1976. From a rate of 1.7 for 1976 it jumped to 8.7 the following year and it increased to 15.5 in 2001 and it hasn’t changed very much since then.

Notice the huge discrepancy between 1968 when abortion was illegal and 2008—the last year the rate was reported: The rate jumped from 0.2 to 14.4. How can you argue that legalizing abortion with certain restrictions tends to reduce the number of abortions?

Can you explain these facts on the basis of your pet theory? Will you please, for a change, respond to the facts of the case instead of blindly defending the views of those who sold their soul for the sake of profit? Are you aware the circumstances which got us into the abortion business?

[Dr. Shane]

Real honesty demands that you face the facts I submitted to you. You ignored them and gave me platitudes.

[Nic Samojluk]

I am starting to think you are a Jesuit spy trying to penetrate and influence Adventism. Sorry, I am not Roman Catholic and never plan to be. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am not interested in the pope's agenda.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I am starting to think you are a Jesuit spy

Do you have any evidence that what you are saying might be even remotely true?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I am starting to think you are a Jesuit spy trying to penetrate and influence Adventism. Sorry, I am not Roman Catholic and never plan to be. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am not interested in the pope's agenda.

Do you have any evidence that what you are saying might be even remotely true? If you do, then I challenge you to submit it here for everybody to see. If you don’t, then I would suggest that you refrain from spreading false rumors which are evidently designed to destroy my good name in the eyes of readers. Character assassination is a serious offense, and you are getting very close to violating the Commandment which forbids bearing a false witness.

[Nic Samojluk]

Of course I do. This thread is full of it. Not only do you support the pope's proposed ban on abortion, you also propose his idea to do it by force. You also reject the concept of religious liberty and argue against it. All the evidence is in this thread. I think anyone reading through this entire thread is going to start wondering if you are a Jesuit.

If this is the kind of evidence which you value then methinks that I am wasting my time in discussing a serious issue like abortion with you. If this is a valid criterion for determining whether an individual is a Jesuit, then I must be in good company, because all pro-lifers do share my views, including all Southern Baptists and all true Christians who lived before the legalization of abortion took place in 1973, and even the Lord himself.

You might be aware that God did believe that all human beings were entitled to life and that the Lord imposed the death penalty for anyone taking the life of an innocent human being. Likewise, the Lord imposed the death penalty for those who dared to desecrate the Sabbath Commandment. In conclusion, if even the Lord was a Jesuit, according to your criteria, then I should perhaps treat your insult as a compliment and thank you for placing me among such good company.