The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[teresaq]

In another thread, it was revealed that Ted Wilson recently commented on this Washington Post article by saying that abortion on demand is not provided at Adventist hospitals. The problem is that extremists don't want to allow abortion except for the most extreme cases.

I disagree.

From their own mouths I have heard them say they are against any birth control, and any abortion for any reason.

[John317]

SDA evangelist Kevin Paulson has given the longest defense of the church's position here where he agrees the church essentially has no restrictions on the practice and might do well to restrict it more. "Many [Adventists] are forming opinions about abortion," he wrote, "not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White's) writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard," all of whom oppose abortion.

"Sincere though they may be, these men espouse many theological errors and have no understanding of God's truth for this time," Paulson wrote. "Seventh- day Adventists should listen to such persons with extreme care and discriminating judgment. ...Among the Adventist pioneers, J.N. Andrews and John Harvey Kellogg wrote against abortion, yet the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on the subject... We find it interesting that when Ellen White speaks of the "earliest moments" of our children, she speaks of birth, not conception," he concluded.

I completely agree with Kevin Paulson. We shouldn't be adopting the viewpoitns of the non-SDAs but should only look to the Bible and to the writings of Ellen White.

I oppose abortion but I don't believe God would have the state enforce the church's teachings on abortion. As with homosexuality, the church needs to teach the true gospel and educate people on the teachings of the Bible, but it shouldn't be looking to the state to legislate on these isssues in order to compel the consciences of others.

[Dr. Shane]

I disagree.

From their own mouths I have heard them say they are against any birth control, and any abortion for any reason.

Can you clarify? Are you talking about the extremists that oppose birth control and abortion for any reason? I am not familiar with any Adventists that oppose birth control. Is there such an animal?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

SDA evangelist Kevin Paulson has given the longest defense of the church's position here where he agrees the church essentially has no restrictions on the practice and might do well to restrict it more. "Many [Adventists] are forming opinions about abortion," he wrote, "not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White's) writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard," all of whom oppose abortion.

"Sincere though they may be, these men espouse many theological errors and have no understanding of God's truth for this time," Paulson wrote. "Seventh- day Adventists should listen to such persons with extreme care and discriminating judgment. ...Among the Adventist pioneers, J.N. Andrews and John Harvey Kellogg wrote against abortion, yet the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on the subject... We find it interesting that when Ellen White speaks of the "earliest moments" of our children, she speaks of birth, not conception," he concluded.

I completely agree with Kevin Paulson. We shouldn't be adopting the viewpoitns of the non-SDAs but should only look to the Bible and to the writings of Ellen White.

I oppose abortion but I don't believe God would have the state enforce the church's teachings on abortion. As with homosexuality, the church needs to teach the true gospel and educate people on the teachings of the Bible, but it shouldn't be looking to the state to legislate on these isssues in order to compel the consciences of others.

Why would you agree with Paulson,John? He claims that the Bible and Ellen White are silent on abortion. Which is it? Are they silent or do they speak to the issue? Why do you agree with Paulson's argument that SDA's should not adapt the viewpoints of non-SDA's? Are they wrong because they are not SDA's?Are they wrong because they they don't use the Bible? Or does EGW offer a proper approach on the issue.Much of what EGW wrote was in harmony with non-SDA authors. Paulson has NO basis on which to substantiate his opinions except his own opinions.You haven't taken this approach on any other issue so why start here?

[doug yowell]

Paulson wrote. ...Among the Adventist pioneers, J.N. Andrews and John Harvey Kellogg wrote against abortion, yet the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on the subject...

What Paulson fails to note is that James White(Ellen's Husband and founder of the SDA church),Andrews,Kellogg,Uriah Smith,and Kate Lindsey all wrote scathing condemnations of abortion every bit as radical as anything written by those non-SDA's that Paulson criticizes.What else he fails to mention is that Ellen White never criticized them for doing so(unlike Paulson and those who support his approach).Where did those pioneers get their opinions of abortion from? (Not James Dobson?)And why didn't Mrs. White counsel them to remain silent? Every state law that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton overturned was passed during Ellen White's lifetime. She had more than ample opportunity to point out the constitutional and spiritual dangers of the state criminalizing abortion. Yet she said nothing. Why not? What are the options for the answer? 1)Unlike Kevin Paulson,she didn't recognize the inherent dangers of state interference in the abortion question.2)She was too busy encouraging the medical missionary ministry.3)She was too busy with WCTU promoting a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit alcohol.4)She assumed that her silence on the issue would be understood as her support for abortion rights.5)She was afraid that if she spoke out against the unanimous support of anti-abortion legislation from the entire Christian world, the AMA, every SDA leader, and her own husband that she might lose her influence as a true prophet.6)God showed her that he would raise up a new generation of prophets in the late 1900's that would be able to better make the case for Him and that she should wait until they could explain the biblical principles regarding "choice" more succinctly than she was capable of doing.7) Neither God nor she cared one way or the other whether a person aborted their baby.8)other

[doug yowell]

the church needs to teach the true gospel and educate people on the teachings of the Bible, but it shouldn't be looking to the state to legislate on these isssues in order to compel the consciences of others.

Should the freedom of conscience permit one human being to take the life of another innocent human being without societal consequence? Are you willing to extend that freedom to the use of alcohol,drugs and tobacco?

[Overaged]

If,in fact,the Bible and EGW are silent on abortion then where do we get the truth about it's morality from???Kevin Paulson?Planned parenthood?Why not popular Christian leaders? And where does Kevin get his opinions from if the Bible and the SOP are silent????And why isn't he maintaining the same silence he's demanding of those with whom he disagrees? "Verrrry intarresting...........but stchupid!"

Oh Doug! Yoo Hoo! The Scriptures actually are NOT silent about this subject.

[Overaged]

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

RE READ AS NEEDED

This is one of the points I have been trying to make. Mark Price's "testimony" should be called something else. And yet this is the only "evidence" some wish to proffer to "prove" that the Church breaks the 6th commandment???

[Overaged]

Mark cannot do anything to "help" anybody by lying about what really happened between himself and the GC

[Overaged]

Teresaq said: “UnChristlike at best, the methods of Satan at worst.”

Nic responds: You may not be aware of this, but when an opponent starts attacking the character of those who disagree with him/her, it is a sign that he/she has no good argument in defense of his/her position. I suggest that you tone down your characterization of those who see this issue from a different perspective.

Wow, you need to practice what you preach! How dare you talk the disgusting way you do about the Church, judging and condemning people who you THINK is doing something wrong; and yet, whom you cannot prove to be doing wrong. I would suggest that you tone down your characterizations of the Church on this and several other issues you keep bringing up. Did you know that you are guilty of murder because of what you keep trying to judge church members by?

[Nic Samojluk]

What terrible sin?

The sin of justifying and participating in the systematic destruction of human life and profiting from the violation of God’s injunction against the shedding of innocent blood.

[Overaged]

quote=teresaq(sda)]What terrible sin?

/quote]

The sin of justifying and participating in the systematic destruction of human life and profiting from the violation of God’s injunction against the shedding of innocent blood.

You are guilty of murder for falsely accusing your brethren. If you break one you break them all. How ridiculous to say that if an individual performs abortions or receives one, that the Church as a corporate body actually rubs it's hands in glee for the "profits" they allegedly make. You have still not proved a thing. All you can do is quote a newspaper article, your own website, or the "testimony" of Mark Price. All anecdotal; at best.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

If,in fact,the Bible and EGW are silent on abortion then where do we get the truth about it's morality from???Kevin Paulson?Planned parenthood?Why not popular Christian leaders? And where does Kevin get his opinions from if the Bible and the SOP are silent????And why isn't he maintaining the same silence he's demanding of those with whom he disagrees? "Verrrry intarresting...........but stchupid!"

Oh Doug! Yoo Hoo! The Scriptures actually are NOT silent about this subject.

I agree 100% but Kevin Paulson disagrees.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

RE READ AS NEEDED

This is one of the points I have been trying to make. Mark Price's "testimony" should be called something else. And yet this is the only "evidence" some wish to proffer to "prove" that the Church breaks the 6th commandment???

Are you intentionally ignoring the next 3 paragraphs of the original Washington Post article? Post those statements along with the above in it's context and then defend the integrity of the church's action and attitude.Page 1 of this thread is the actual observation of the WP reporter not the interpretation of what we "think" the church did or did not do. Did you happen to notice the demands that the SDA attorney made of Facebook as well as the creator of the AFL site. Trying to spin the response to look like if one had just asked, the permission would have been gladly granted is disingenuous at best.Suggesting that Mark Price had some open agenda to undermine the good name of the church is no better.Church's and church institutions are susceptable to making mistakes, they need to be of the same nature in admittting and correcting those mistakes.This would go much further in encouraging loyalty, respect and a fervent spirit of imitation.

[Overaged]

Are you intentionally ignoring the next 3 paragraphs of the original Washington Post article? Post those statements along with the above in it's context and then defend the integrity of the church's action and attitude.

No such defence is needed. The newspaper was only going by what Mark fed them with. The newspaper has no better evidence of church wrong-doing here than you or Nic. All anecdotal innuendos, clearly not reflecting the actual church position and practice thereof. I noticed that the news article used just 2 words in quotes to describe what the church teaches - that is real rocket-science context isn't it? Don't talk to the public about context until you have some yourself!

[Overaged]

/quote]Oh Doug! Yoo Hoo! The Scriptures actually are NOT silent about this subject./quote] I agree 100% but Kevin Paulson disagrees.

I doubt that he does. Quoting one sentence, or supposedly quoting it leaves out context, and likely valuable evidence to the contrary. At any rate; even if he did disagree, that would not = the church supporting systematic murder. That's whats "schtupid" about all this.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Are you intentionally ignoring the next 3 paragraphs of the original Washington Post article? Post those statements along with the above in it's context and then defend the integrity of the church's action and attitude.

No such defence is needed. The newspaper was only going by what Mark fed them with. The newspaper has no better evidence of church wrong-doing here than you or Nic. All anecdotal innuendos, clearly not reflecting the actual church position and practice thereof. I noticed that the news article used just 2 words in quotes to describe what the church teaches - that is real rocket-science context isn't it? Don't talk to the public about context until you have some yourself!

Ya didn't read the rest of the quote,did ya? If I wasn't such a computer dunce I'd have pasted the rest of the WP reporter's testimony (not Price's) so you wouldn't have to strain yourself to find it, Sorry, my bad. The reporter stated that SHE contacted both the church to get their story as well as Price. She even read the copy of the cease and desist notice sent to Facebook(and included the name of the church attorney who sent it) and reached her conclusions based upon that evidence not merely Price's "hearsay".The newspaper report makes no judgment on the guilt or innocence of either the church or Price,it merely presents the facts of the story and asks what it really means from it's readers. I take the story as being factually true and make my judgments on the facts given. I do not assume that the facts are all a bunch of lying distortions perpetuated by disgruntled SDA's and taken at face value by the Post reporter.Since I have heard from other SDA's who have been treated in the same way as Price I tend to believe the reporter's unbiased rendition of the facts and judge accordingly.

[doug yowell]

Mark cannot do anything to "help" anybody by lying about what really happened between himself and the GC

So you have proof that Price lied about the whole situation? Good, send your evidence to the Washington Post and then post some of it here.Otherwise it's you who stand before God with or without the evidence of your witness against your neighbor.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

/quote]Oh Doug! Yoo Hoo! The Scriptures actually are NOT silent about this subject./quote] I agree 100% but Kevin Paulson disagrees.

I doubt that he does. Quoting one sentence, or supposedly quoting it leaves out context, and likely valuable evidence to the contrary. At any rate; even if he did disagree, that would not = the church supporting systematic murder. That's whats "schtupid" about all this.

"...the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on this subject."(Kevin Paulson)There is nothing ambigious about this statement. What's not clear is Paulson's use of this to silence prolife advocacy but not his own prochoice viewpoints.He follows this statement by (falsely) alluding to EGW's writings to substantiate his own position and proceeds to make a 'biblical' case for the nonhumanity of the unborn. My attacks of Paulson's arguments have never taken him out of context and (I've read his treatise several times)he himself makes no excuses for believing that the unborn are not fully human and that killing them constitutes no moral violation.In Kevin's mind abortion is not murder it's choice, so the church cannot be guilty of supporting murder.

[Dr. Shane]

You are guilty of murder for falsely accusing your brethren. If you break one you break them all.

[Overaged]

?

[Overaged]

I haven’t denied this! Nevertheless, the church has failed in the past. Nazi Germany and Rwanda are good examples where the Adventist church did fail the moral test. The current genocide in which our church has been actively participating is a new example where our church has failed again.

All religious movements have so far failed in the past at a time of serious crisis, and our church is no exception. Look at what happened to the Catholic church and to all the reform movements, both Catholic and Protestants, which preceded our own.

Like I said Nic; you have many other beefs with the Church all of which you use as a platform to excuse your murderous campaign to smear innocent people who have nothing to do with abortions and would never in a million years condone them ; and they would never in a million years go where you have and try to make it like the whole church supports murder, just because 1 or 2 people do. You parrot the Romish machine which demands surrender of the conscience to the Church. Our Church leaders are atleast smart enough to not go there and to not demand that the Church be our conscience; and if you think you are so smart by finding a little snippet that some leader or another said, and making it out like the Church says it; then you are deliberately lying, and guilty of murder yourself. You break one, you break them all.

Your problem is with the Church; not with abortions. You have nothing to do with "pro-life" and that's another lie you propogate.

[Stan]

Do tell how the Church failed in Rwanda, and not a story about a retired Pastor who warned his neighbours by saying I regret to tell you that tomorrow you will die. Those who knew this retired pastor knew he was wrongly convicted.

How did the Church fail in Rwanda?

[Nic Samojluk]

I disagree.

From their own mouths I have heard them say they are against any birth control, and any abortion for any reason.

I don’t know about others, but what I would like to see is the Adventist Church to go back to the position held by the church before the sexual revolution of the sixties which prompted our Adventist brethren to experiment with the so called “therapeutic” abortion which in turn opened the door later on to abortion on demand when the State of Hawaii legalized abortion.

For a hundred years our Adventist Church held to the pro-life position which teaches that there is only one exception for abortion: when the life of the mother is in serious jeopardy. Our current position is similar to the rest of the world, which has resulted in the death of 50 million innocent unborn children.

[Nic Samojluk]

John said: “I completely agree with Kevin Paulson.”

I say: Kevin Paulson is misinformed, and you agree completely with him? He claims that Ellen White was silent on abortion. Was she? Read the following statements she made and tell me whether you still agree with Paulson:

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 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." [White. Selected Messages, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 429-430.]

Notice that Ellen considered that the neglect of a pregnant woman’s health was equivalent to almost murder of the unborn. Can we conclude that the actual killing of the unborn is less than murder?

John said: “I oppose abortion but I don't believe God would have the state enforce the church's teachings on abortion.”

I say: If killing the unborn is murder, according to the Adventist pioneers—including Ellen White—then don’t’ we have the sacred duty to exercise our right to vote for political candidates who will protect the innocent from murder? Didn’t Mrs. White actively participate in the temperance movement? Was it wrong for her to do so?

And we are talking about ingesting alcoholic beverages which causes intoxication. A person addicted to wine or beer can get drunk on occasion, but the next day he is probably sober and able to go to work. Can the aborted baby recover from the abortion ordeal?

Can’t you see that the consequences of abortion are much worse than merely drinking alcoholic beverages? Should Adventist be silent on the issue of abortion knowing that Ellen White was not silent on temperance which does not result in death in the majority of the cases? Can we think straight on this issue?

And bear in mind that the Bible does condemn the shedding of innocent blood in the strongest terms, but does not outright condemn the consumption of intoxicating beverages.