What I Learned About Abortion & the Adventist Church

[Nic Samojluk]

My position is the same as the Adventist church. Abortion should never be used as a means of birth control, convenience or for gender selection. NEVER!!!

I also agree that abortion should never be used for birth control. My question to you is: Do you also agree with the Adventist Guidelines on Abortion which suggest, among other things, that abortion is a viable option and morally justifiable when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the woman complains that her mental health is being affected by the unexpected pregnancy?

If you do then, please tell me why would it be morally acceptable to take the life of the innocent victim while letting the criminal rapist live, which is done on a routine basis in American society? Doesn’t justice demand that the guilty be punished for the crime instead of the innocent?

In the event you also agree with the Adventist position on abortion, then what do you do with the mental exception. Women routinely go to their abortionist and claim that their mental health is being affected by the unexpected pregnancy, and bingo, the life of another innocent victim is snuffed before the poor baby has had a chance to take the first breath. Do you agree with this policy?

Do you also agree with the Adventist policy of allowing each Adventist hospital to create their own guidelines, which has resulted in several hospitals offering ELECTIVE abortions to their patients? Our Washington Adventist Hospital has been killing unborn babies by the hundreds. Do you agree with this policy of the church?

[Nic Samojluk]

I am not obligated to raise other people's children. I am not obligated to raise other people's children. There are children that die in this world every day because of their parent's neglect and treatment of them. When a rapist leaves his sperm in a woman's reproductive organs, that woman has no obligation to care for that man's child

[Dr. Shane]

If you wish to help women who have submitted to abortion, you'll need to preach God's goodness, which is rarely heard from today's SDA pulpit.

I can't disagree more. My pastor preaches God's goodness all the time. I turn on Hope Channel and 3ABN and hear God's goodness preached all the time.

[Dr. Shane]

My question to you is: Do you also agree with the Adventist Guidelines on Abortion which suggest, among other things, that abortion is a viable option and morally justifiable when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the woman complains that her mental health is being affected by the unexpected pregnancy?

[Dr. Shane]

Fifty percent of that baby belongs genetically to the pregnant woman. This alone should be reason enough not to kill the baby.

It is stolen DNA. The rapist had no right to use the woman's DNA to make a baby. The woman has absolute right to terminate that rapist's baby. No doubt.

[Nic Samojluk]

Your kind of absolutist thinking frightens me.

[Gerr]

Quote:

well, if it's a human spermatozoon and ovum............i would say, voila! absolutley. :smile: a miracle of our Creator.

Great answer!

A dog, rat, monkey spermatozoon + ovum is ALSO a miracle of the Creator!

[Nic Samojluk]

what about all those other spermatozoon that died? Were they KILLED by the "super" spermatozoa that got through the ovum membrane?

Sperms do not constitute a human being. Only a combination of sperm and ova do!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Your kind of absolutist thinking frightens me.

If you are in the right, there is no good reason to be afraid. If my quoting the Bible frightens you, then what would you do on the Day of Judgment? Isn’t it better to be afraid before that final event?

Because when absolutist thinkers get into positions of power, they become the David Koreshes, Jimmy Jones, Stalins or Hitlers of the world!!! Or the inquisitors that burn people!!! My conscience is clear on my abortion position, so that's the least of my concerns come judgment day.

[Dr. Shane]

We have reason to fear absolutist thinkers that believe in a union of church and state.

[Nic Samojluk]

The point is that God did kill what "appeared" to be innocent blood. I was pointing out an error in the argument being made.

[Gerr]

Quote:

As I have asked in another post - when a spermatozoon joins with an ovum, do you then have a human being?

When, according to your view, does human life start? If the first cell is not human, what is it then? Are you aware that most abortions are performed when there is a beating heart and the blood is already circulating through the tiny developing human body of the unborn? Can we concentrate, for practical reasons, on the real baby which is being aborted?

Ok, I agree with you that life begins at conception; that has been my position. But just because a spermatozoon and an ovum has joined together, does that make it human? Do you call a fertilized egg a chicken?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Again, does someone who forces his way into your house innocent if killed in the process?

The unborn baby is not guilty of forced entry! Justice demand that we punish the guilty—not the innocent!

Again, let me ask you, if the fetus/conceptus resulting from rape is not an intruder according to your view, IS IT A WELCOME/INVITED GUEST?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Again you are taking abortion in its most extreme form to make a point. Suppose a woman uses RU-486 - the morning-after pill? Or suppose it is aborted at the 4-cell, 64-cell, or 256-cell stage BEFORE any recognizable body parts are formed?

Wow! Look at what you said! And you are saying that I have chosen a “most extreme” case to make a point? Who was the first one to introduce the question of the union of a sperm with and ova: You or me? If you are the one who did this, then how can you blame me for responding?

Yes! You took the most extreme form of abortion when you talked about limb being torn from the fetus, etc. etc. I don't relish that either. That's why I was asking you what if - the conceptus is aborted at the 4-cell, 64-cell, 256-cell or BEFORE there are any recognizable human body parts? Or what if we just prevent the fertilized ovum (ova are usually fertilized in the Fallopian tubes) from being implanted in the uterus? Do you object that too because you consider a fertilized ovum a human being?

[Gordon1]

Do you see a fundamental difference between the messages of Elijah, John the Baptist, and most reformers-including Billy Graham? They all preached very clearly about sin and the need for repentance. Do you think that John the Baptist preached a soft message of love, compassion, understanding and compromise?

Why was his head chopped off? Was it because he was a soft spoken preacher who was afraid to step on some toes? Have you considered what Jesus’ opinion was about John the Baptist? Didn’t he describe him as the greatest prophet in human history?

Last evening I watched one of the Billy Graham great sermons. He preached about the sins of immorality and the need of repentance. Did he treat this subject with smooth, soft spoken words? His words, his demeanor, his gestures were all designed to shake his hearers into the reality of a coming judgment and the need of repentance, confession, and forgiveness. Do you think that he should have been more diplomatic and careful in his choice of words and demeanor?

As I listened to his message, I felt like I was standing before Almighty God in the Day of Judgment, and I could watch a similar reaction as I watched the faces of the thousands of people who gathered to listen to this man of God. Many experts do believe that Billy Graham was one of the greatest evangelists that we have had in our generation. Do you wish he had been more condescending and considerate of people’s feelings?

Hi Nic,

Certainly Billy Graham was a great orator. Perhaps a good actor as well. But I fear your praise for him and comparisons with John the Baptist fall short of the truth. There's little point Nic in holding the Adventist health system to account if you'll endorse the 'Reverend' Graham for misrepresenting Christ.

Billy Graham never lost his head for speaking the truth. On the contrary, he befriended a dozen U.S. presidents, was 'advisor' to many, and held a special place for Pope John Paul II.

Graham is well acquainted with the Sabbath truth as testified by a late SDA evangelist, whose families holidayed together. Those who responded to BG's crusade calls were sent back to the churches they came from, whether Protestant, Jewish or Roman Catholic. Graham spoke of his coordination with local parishes to ensure adequate presence of Roman Catholic counsellors at his stadium events.

Following the Pope's death on April 2, 2005, Larry King interviewed Billy Graham:

KING: There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?

GRAHAM: Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don't think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope -- I think he's with the Lord, because he believed.

Interview: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/ANS_PopeGrahamCaviezel.aspx

Immortality of the soul is the principal doctrine of Spiritualism and a mainstay of the Vatican's ecumenical movement. John the Baptist's message of repentance was quite different from Billy Graham's ecumenical compromise. And so he saved his life. Fortunately, still alive, he can still repent.

No brother Nic, Billy Graham curried favour with the rich & powerful. He was not shut up in prison and beheaded by the kings of this world. He was their friend, excusing their adulteries. Please don't equate John the Baptist's fearless faith with that of world-loving men, no matter what the experts tell you.

Billy Graham's Love Affair with the Popes:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham-pope.htm

Billy Graham & Catholicism:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham-apostasy.htm

If your message demonstrated more balance Nic, it might be more plausible. But it lacks solid Biblical support as well as an important element of mercy. It seems to be all justice, fraught with the emotion of the Inquisition. If one confuses Billy Graham with John the Baptist, it's possible one will also ally with the RCC over such political issues.

Gordon

[Gerr]

Quote:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

This teaching was inherited by the Catholic Church, and Rome has never deviated from this teaching of the Apostles. Nevertheless, the church God chose to preach the last message of hope to the world has decided to compromise on this issue. What a shame! No wonder we have recently seen what has never reported before: Some Adventists going back to Rome!

Teaching of the Apostles? Would you kindly show the reference in the NT?

The OT has this to say: “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. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, Ex 21:22-23 ESV

Here the offender is not charged with murder if the pregnant woman miscarries (unless it's the woman that dies); he is merely fined.

[doug yowell]

[

1. Have you read all my post in this thread? Maybe you can state what you understand to be my position to see if it's correct?

2. I am not aware that abortion was even an issue with our pioneers. I found no reference at all in the writings of EGW. Could you provide some references? And BTW, many of our early pioneers did not believe in the Trinity, should we go back to their lead?

1) No Gerry, I didn't read all of your posts in this thread but I'm familar with what Nic believes and was responding to your assertion (which you didn't respond to) that he overstepped Biblical boundries when he presents his position as the biblical one. I asked you what IS the biblical position? And why is Nic out of line? 2) Yes, abortion WAS an issue with our founders, and while it is true the EGW didn't directly address it in her writings,James White, J.N.Andrews, Uriah Smith, J.H.Kellogg, and Kate Lindsey did. Since EGW never criticized their publicly open condemnations of abortion, on what basis do you believe that Nic's parallel expression is different?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I thought we were discussing the unborn!

In some societies they do kill rapists! Read the story of Dinah.

I thought we were discussing the issue of abortion in the U.S. which legalized abortion with the approval of the Adventist Church that lead the way and approved ELECTIVE abortions two years before 1973.

So then, why did you stretch it to asking me if I would approve killing/poisoning the mentally retarded & others who are already born?

[doug yowell]

Quote:

In addition, every historic prominent Christian expositor has presented the same view.What is THE biblical view that those who advocate this position are overstepping? Isn't this the same argument that is used Adventists regarding Sabbath, once saved, always saved, IJ, Creation, homosexuality, ect...ect...?

Could you please provide a reference where I have undervalued the unborn? I am against Nic's absolutist position that all abortions are wrong. Examine God's own 10 commandments and you will see there are many exceptions!

First, Nic's absolutist position does NOT CONDEMN aLL ABORTIONS so it's not an absolutist position.In fact, I don't know of anyone who opposes elective abortion that doesn't empathize with the mother's choice if her life is in danger.Even Roe v. Wade overturned a law that allowed exceptions for the life threatening situation.And your reference to the exceptions in the 10 Commandments I'm having a hard time locating.Can you give an example. I'm not understanding what you're meaning. When we allow for the intentional killing of human beings that potentially will not function at full human capacity, we declare that they have less human value than the fully functional ones. We put them in a different human category.When we put the unwanted human in that category we declare their value to be subjective to the whims of whoever decides to terminate them.Are you convinced that God looks at the deformed human being in this way?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

No, we don't have to contrast these two memories, as each path is an absolute. IOWs, when one comes to the path of choice, the resulting decision is one that she lives with. Granted, she will weigh it out, but she will make the choice if she feels the need. She makes this sacred decision herself. All others support her, including the husband.

That only applies to married couples. I suspect that most women who have abortions are not married. And many don't even want abortion, but are pressured by boyfriends who don't want the responsibility of a child, or forced by parents, or simply feel they have no other options. Those are also the ones who are probably going to deal with the greatest guilt and depression. I'd guess they're also the ones who are most likely to commit suicide afterward.

My sister had an abortion, many years ago, because she was ashamed to have anyone know she was pregnant, or even the fact that she had been raped. She was young, and not married. To this day, I don't think she knows that we know. So I also don't know how she dealt with the trauma back then, or deals with the memories now. Maybe the family she has now has helped her forget.

Actually, Gramma, Statistics indicate that a significant % of abortions are requested by married women. I can's remember the exact figure but I think it's about 15-25%. When our founders wrote about abortion in the 1800's most of the women were married.

[doug yowell]

[

A dog, rat, monkey spermatozoon + ovum is ALSO a miracle of the Creator!

Yes Gerry, and is obviously a dog, rat, or monkey.Now that you agree that the human is also a miracle of the Creator, why are you arguing for it's killing?

[doug yowell]

[

The OT has this to say: “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. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, Ex 21:22-23 ESV

Here the offender is not charged with murder if the pregnant woman miscarries (unless it's the woman that dies); he is merely fined.

Notice that this was an accidental occurance.Notice that neither the mother or the father asked the guilty party to terminate their baby for them.Notice that even though an accident occurred their was a penalty for the offender indicating that the unborn child had an intrinsic value.Notice that you used the words "merely" fined. Would the penalty be the same if it was purposely done? Are you saying that Ex.21 teaches that the unborn is not 100% human or not as valuable as the born human?

[doug yowell]

[

Ok, I agree with you that life begins at conception; that has been my position. But just because a spermatozoon and an ovum has joined together, does that make it human? Do you call a fertilized egg a chicken?

What??I didn't know that the s/o joined together made an egg shell.Doesn't a fertilized egg have a chicken in it? I know I didn't make it thru Med school but what are the chances that the fertilized egg will become an elephant? Or breakfast?

[doug yowell]

[Again, let me ask you, if the fetus/conceptus resulting from rape is not an intruder according to your view, IS IT A WELCOME/INVITED GUEST?

Is this the question we ask ourselves in order to decide whether or not to kill another human being? If a woman leaves her newborn baby on my doorstep and I'm already destitute, is this the question that determines the morality of my response? I'm I justified in throwing the baby in the dumpster because it was uninvited and unwelcome? Am I my brother's keeper?

[Nic Samojluk]

We breed the best plants and animals to get the healthiest and the best, why the objection when it comes to humans?