Can Abortion be a Blessing?

[miz3]

I fail to see how an unwed young girl could possibly benefit by carrying an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of a forced entry.

It is not about the "unwed young girl". This is part of the fallacy of your argument.

IT IS ABOUT GOD AND THE FACT THAT GOD UNITES THE SPERM/EGG TO MAKE WHAT GOD WANTS TO BE A MORE DEVELOPED HUMAN BEING.

That developing human being will continue to grow and develop as long as God sees fit. If humans interfere then they commit murder in addition to interfering with God's will and His property.

[miz3]

Balut = fertilized duck/chicken egg.

It is a food found mainly in the Philippines and Southeast Asia area.

Very common in these pagan cultures.

I hope you are not equating an "animal" as having equal status in the "Eyes of God" to that of a human "fertilized egg/Zygote".

Are you saying that to "kill" a cow/animal is equal to killing a human being?

If you are then you are outside the Scripture.

[doug yowell]

That's exactly my point! I can't give you a clear, "Thus says the Lord." And neither can you! That's why we cannot be dogmatic about this things.

But isn't that exactly the same argument that you so effectively argue against when it comes to the absence of a NT text requiring Sabbath keeping for NT Christians?

[doug yowell]

A 6 mo old fetus has a well-established heartbeat and a functioning nervous system that can feel. And those instructions for the mother affect the development of the fetus.

But neither EGW's nor the Angel of the Lord's instructions for fetal care stipulate that that care need not start until sometime later in the pregnancy.So how can the instructions of God be relevant if the zygote is not yet a human being? And how could a 6 month old fetus "leap for joy" at the presence of a zygote if that zygote was not yet a human being?

[doug yowell]

Is it not commanded in the Bible that those who deface the image of God (shed man's blood) be destroyed? Is not an unwanted sperm part of the instrument by which the image of God in the victim is defaced especially in an unwed teenager?

But the unwanted sperm sheds no blood nor (in most cases) lead to a situation which threatens to shed blood but rather it actually is instrumental in creating a new and distinct human image that will produce new blood. Whether it is wanted is not reflective of whether or not it is inherently evil.And what evil did the egg do, it was not part of the crime? Would the victim not feel defaced if the criminal had had a vasectomy?

[doug yowell]

Again I ask, why does anyone want to buy a fertilized egg? Common sense tells us that there is a chicken inside,doesn't it? Doesn't everyone who sells eggs make a point to tell others if it is fertilized or not? What is the fertilized zygote before it evolves into being human? If you went to the local chicken hatchery and stole all the eggs under their hot light would you use the same argument if they complained that you've killed all their chickens? Would you tell them "Those weren't chickens, those were eggs"? Is a dead sparrow (or chicken) worth more to God than a human "zygote"?

You obviously have never heard of "balut", Doug, or have you?

I have now, but apparently the balnut is distinctive from an unfertilized egg. (And people eat chickens after they are born too.) So you just validated what common sense points out, people want to eat a balnut because there's a _______ inside, and people who don't want to eat an egg with a _______ inside don't buy balnuts.Yes?

[doug yowell]

Or how do you understand the response of an unborn John the Baptist (3 months to go till birth)to the presence of a newly implanted (zygote?)

Do you know what John the Baptist and Attila the Hun had in common?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

That's exactly my point! I can't give you a clear, "Thus says the Lord." And neither can you! That's why we cannot be dogmatic about this things.

But isn't that exactly the same argument that you so effectively argue against when it comes to the absence of a NT text requiring Sabbath keeping for NT Christians?

Ahhh, but the NT is NOT our sole authority for faith & morals & doctrine! And nowhere does the NT say the 4th commandment has been done away with.

[doug yowell]

Ahhh, but the NT is NOT our sole authority for faith & morals & doctrine! And nowhere does the NT say the 4th commandment has been done away with.

But neither does it give the clear "thus saith the Lord" that you (on the nature of the zygote) or the "NT believer"(regarding the Sabbath) demand. Are you suggesting that the most volatile social question of the 20th+ century has no answer from the Bible(God)?Is there ANY Biblical,scientific, or natural (the other Bible)support for the idea that the implanted zygote has no moral value in the eyes of God (which is the real question here,isn't it)? If not, then why is the beginning of human life at conception,and it's importance to it's Creator,a presumptious leap of either logic,reason, or Biblical faith? If the concept contradicts none of the revealed principles of both OT and NT and is in harmony with the belief that all life ("In Him we live and move and have our being.")begins and is sustained by God then where exactly does the non-humanity of the unborn come from?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo asked:

“what is the image of God?”

Those Adventists who defend abortion argue that the image of God is the "ability to think and to do." Since the unborn has not developed the ability to think and to do, therefore they do not have the image of God and we are at liberty to dismember their tiny bodies, or else poison them.

My view is that this kind of thinking provides an inadequate and incomplete description of the image of God. For me, the image of God is much more than simply the ability to think and to do. Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, and Bin Laden did demonstrate a great ability to think and to do, but they possessed not the image of God, but rather the image of the Devil.

A true image of God includes having a character similar to that of God in addition to the ability to think and to do. I conclude that those who support the killing of the most innocent and most vulnerable members of humanity to not have the true but rather a false image of God.

[Nic Samojluk]

Stan wrote:

“WHAT I AM a supporter of, is the people trying to stop them, to make a way of escape for the often younger girl to have the baby, that includes the expenses,living, baby clothes, diapers, emotional and friendship support, perhaps an adoption proccess, and helping her through it.”

Yes, we should all support those activities. Now, I have a question for you. Some defenders of abortion are suggesting that, since society does not fully support helping pregnant women in the way you describe, the solution is to kill those unborn babies.

Is death preferable than a lack of proper nutrition and clothing and the conveniences of life? Baby Jesus was born in a stable. Would he have been better if aborted? Should society start killing those who lack food and clothing?

I know by personal experience what it means to be poor. I grew up in South America, and I remember that some days we would get up and there was no food in the pantry but green onions, and I had to fill my stomach with them. We lived in a rustic home with dirt floor and a thatched roof.

When it rained, I had to stay awake all night because there was not a single dry spot on my bed. I had one pair of pants and one pair of shoes. When my mother did the washing, I had to stay in bed until my pants would be dry enough for me to wear them. If I wanted a toy, I had to make it myself. Should I have been aborted?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I fail to see how an unwed young girl could possibly benefit by carrying an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of a forced entry.

It is not about the "unwed young girl". This is part of the fallacy of your argument.

And the girl's life means nothing? Any value system that puts more value on a zygote than a developed person has got it backwards, imho.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Ahhh, but the NT is NOT our sole authority for faith & morals & doctrine! And nowhere does the NT say the 4th commandment has been done away with.

But neither does it give the clear "thus saith the Lord" that you (on the nature of the zygote) or the "NT believer"(regarding the Sabbath) demand. Are you suggesting that the most volatile social question of the 20th+ century has no answer from the Bible(God)?Is there ANY Biblical,scientific, or natural (the other Bible)support for the idea that the implanted zygote has no moral value in the eyes of God (which is the real question here,isn't it)? If not, then why is the beginning of human life at conception,and it's importance to it's Creator,a presumptious leap of either logic,reason, or Biblical faith? If the concept contradicts none of the revealed principles of both OT and NT and is in harmony with the belief that all life ("In Him we live and move and have our being.")begins and is sustained by God then where exactly does the non-humanity of the unborn come from?

I am not suggesting that a human zygote has no moral value. What I am saying is that the well-being of a developed human being is of more value. Therefore, when it comes to a choice between the two, I'd take the latter, in the same way that I would choose to preserve the life of an endangered mother over the unborn.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“Left ALONE, neither can a zygote survive on its own.”

Can children survive on their own? Should we exterminate all children because they cannot survive on their own. Should we do the same with all the patients in hospitals?

“Do tornadoes, earthquakes, & tsunamis make any distinction between the good & the bad? The normal from the abnormal?”

Precisely! Nature makes no distinction between the good and the bad, but we were granted a brain and a sense of duty which we are supposed to use for the benefit of ourselves and others. And we must use these gifts to save lives instead of destroying them.

Satan is labeled in Scripture as the destroyer and the one who has been a murderer from the beginning. Scripture says that a “smoldering wick he will not snuff out.” The lord is in the saving business, while the Devil is in the snuffing out one. His solution is to snuff out the lives of innocent unborn babies.

“There is nothing difficult or equivocal about stealing or rape. They are clearly wrong not only Biblically but societal mores prohibits them as well.”

There is nothing equivocal about murder either. The prohibition about stealing is almost next to the one forbidding murder in Exodus 20. If stealing a car is morally wrong, what can we say about stealing the life of an innocent human being! If you had a choice, would you choose that someone steals your car or wallet, or your life?

“Not all agree that a fertilized egg IS a human being.”

If its not human, then what is it? The opposite of human is inhuman. What is inhuman is not the fertilized egg, but rather the person who handles it like trash. Besides, let us remember that we are talking about abortion. Abortion takes place when the fertilized egg is already developing inside the uterus.

Most abortions are performed when there are identifiable elements of human beings, including limbs, a torso, a head , and a beating heart. The fertilized egg argument is used to justify the merciless killing of unborn babies all the way to when the baby is ready to be born and even while it is being born. Have you heard about partial-birth abortions? The baby’s head is crushed seconds before it is out of the birth canal.

“I would certainly agree that the character of God would be part of that image. Does a zygote have "the ability and willingness to develop a character similar to that of God?"”

Yes, it does! Let it develop and the natural result will be a human being like you and me! Otherwise, we would have to allow the killing of young children who are simply brats and show evidence of selfishness. We don’t kill human beings whose character resembles the character of the Devil, do we?

[Gerr]

Gerry Cabalo asked:

“what is the image of God?”

Those Adventists who defend abortion argue that the image of God is the "ability to think and to do." Since the unborn has not developed the ability to think and to do, therefore they do not have the image of God and we are at liberty to dismember their tiny bodies, or else poison them.

I have made no such conclusions! I have made my position clear in another of your abortion threads, so this is a distortion! Here is my position again:

I am against abortion, EXCEPT - 1) when the mother's life is in danger, 2) Rape 3) Possibly some cases of malformations or genetic defects.

[Gerr]

Precisely! Nature makes no distinction between the good and the bad, but we were granted a brain and a sense of duty which we are supposed to use for the benefit of ourselves and others. And we must use these gifts to save lives instead of destroying them.

We live in an imperfect world. Often, the choice is between two unpleasant ones. For me, if it comes to a choice between the well-being of the mother or rape victim and the zygote/fetus, I'll choose the former any day.

Quote:

Satan is labeled in Scripture as the destroyer and the one who has been a murderer from the beginning. Scripture says that a “smoldering wick he will not snuff out.” The lord is in the saving business, while the Devil is in the snuffing out one. His solution is to snuff out the lives of innocent unborn babies.

So if you have to choose between two smoldering wicks, which of the two do you choose?

Quote:

There is nothing equivocal about murder either. The prohibition about stealing is almost next to the one forbidding murder in Exodus 20. If stealing a car is morally wrong, what can we say about stealing the life of an innocent human being! If you had a choice, would you choose that someone steals your car or wallet, or your life?

And taking the well-being of the rape victim is not stealing?

Quote:

If its not human, then what is it?

It's called a ZYGOTE!

Most abortions are performed when there are identifiable elements of human beings, including limbs, a torso, a head , and a beating heart. The fertilized egg argument is used to justify the merciless killing of unborn babies all the way to when the baby is ready to be born and even while it is being born. Have you heard about partial-birth abortions? The baby’s head is crushed seconds before it is out of the birth canal.

“I would certainly agree that the character of God would be part of that image. Does a zygote have "the ability and willingness to develop a character similar to that of God?"”

Yes, it does!

Yeah, right!

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“The pro-choice community offers no such "choice" to those considering aborting their unwanted babies. SDA's for all their resources and rhetoric offer nothing to these women.I'd be really pumped if the church was to fund just one support ministry for our own SDA women in crisis.”

True indeed! There was a couple in Loma Linda who started a Crisis Pregnancy center named Adventists For Life. Adventists made their life so miserable that they had to relocate to Hemet and they moved their church membership to the Riverside Seventh Day Baptist Church.

On several occasions I have sent donations to the Adventist Pro-life program. I sent the checks to my local church and also to the General Conference. In each instance my checks were returned with the following explanation. “The church does not have a Pro-life program.”

Our church is not interested in such programs! Why? Because it has compromised on this moral issue and has sided with those interested in the profit derived from the killing of babies. Adventists need to read the story of how this all started. This was recorded on the pages of our Ministry magazine.

Adventist historian George Gainer has documented the names of 12 Adventist hospitals that were offering elective abortions, which is contrary to Bible principles and contrary to church policy; but like Pilate of old, the church has condemned abortions on demand with one hand, while granting our medical institutions freedom to profit from killing human beings with the other hand.

Here is the link to this incredible historical account. I read it again yesterday, and I am still all shaken up with disgust at the things that lead us to this ugly moral morass:

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/...#at_pco=cft-1.0

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“I fail to see how an unwed young girl could possibly benefit by carrying an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of a forced entry.”

Perhaps you need to read the stories of girls who did refuse to kill their unborn babies in spite of the rape. Some of those babies grew up to become the pride of those women.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“And the girl's life means nothing? Any value system that puts more value on a zygote than a developed person has got it backwards, imho.”

Only God can determine whose life is worth more! Take the case of Mary the mother of Jesus. Whose life was worth more in the eyes of God, the mother or the unborn baby—zygote if you prefer?

But suppose we adopt the position that the life of the pregnant girl is worth more. Does it follow that the worth of the unborn baby is worthless which can be disposed of and thrown into the trash, as many females have done?

[Gerr]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“I fail to see how an unwed young girl could possibly benefit by carrying an unwanted pregnancy that is the result of a forced entry.”

Perhaps you need to read the stories of girls who did refuse to kill their unborn babies in spite of the rape. Some of those babies grew up to become the pride of those women.

If a girl sees a blessing in such a pregnancy, then let her carry it to term. But how about those that do not see it that way? Or if the parents of such a girl don't see any blessing in it? What do you want to do? Compel them to go through with it?

[Gerr]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“And the girl's life means nothing? Any value system that puts more value on a zygote than a developed person has got it backwards, imho.”

Only God can determine whose life is worth more! Take the case of Mary the mother of Jesus. Whose life was worth more in the eyes of God, the mother or the unborn baby—zygote if you prefer?

While only God can make the correct decision, it is nonsense to say that man has not been given the brains to make those kinds of decisions. We make value judgments all the time. In medicine we have far more organ demand than available donors. To whom do you give a precious heart or liver or kidney, to the old or to the young? To a person who has abused his body or to someone who has fallen victim to a condition through no fault of his own?

Sorry, your example is a non sequitor, imo. I have never heard of any rape victim who was told that the pregnancy she has is the result of the Holy Spirit's action!

Quote:

But suppose we adopt the position that the life of the pregnant girl is worth more. Does it follow that the worth of the unborn baby is worthless which can be disposed of and thrown into the trash, as many females have done?

Is that what I said? But let me ask you & Doug. Are there absolutely no exceptions to your anti-abortion paradigm?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“I have made no such conclusions! I have made my position clear in another of your abortion threads, so this is a distortion!”

I didn’t say that this was your conclusion! Did you notice that I took the care to make sure I was not talking about you but in general about people who use said argument to justify abortion all the way until seconds before birth?

This means that it was not a distortion, but a statement about the use of said argument by other people.

The fact that you made your position clear on other threads is irrelevant. You can’t expect me to read all comments on other threads nor to remember the precise position every person has ever made. Don’t expect me have an encyclopedic memory. My name is not Google, but simply Nic.

“I am against abortion, EXCEPT - 1) when the mother's life is in danger"

We are in agreement here!

2) “Rape”

At this point we part company. What right do we have to kill the innocent if we consistently save the life of the guilty rapist. What kind of justice is this?

3) “Possibly some cases of malformations or genetic defects.”

There have been many cases of erroneous diagnosis. I have read about many cases where pregnant women have refused to have an abortion and the baby was born without any malformation. Have you read the story of Tim Tebow? Here is the link:

http://www.woestowows.org/hope/abortion/timtebow.html

Do you think that it is wise to play God. Only God can predict the future of a baby with 100 percent accuracy.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“We live in an imperfect world. Often, the choice is between two unpleasant ones. For me, if it comes to a choice between the well-being of the mother or rape victim and the zygote/fetus, I'll choose the former any day.”

What kind of well being? Temporary inconvenience or the long lasting kind? An abortion may provide a temporary relief, but the price is long lasting sense of guilt which results from having been an accomplice in the killing a human being and having violated their conscience and what God has forbidden.

This kind of compromise about moral issues is what led our Adventist Church into the abortion on demand business which has resulted in thousands of innocent babies being exterminated inside our Adventist hospitals. We started with the so called therapeutic abortion dealing with rape, incest, and malformation.

Very soon, all abortion began to be labeled as therapeutic, as a dear sister told me about what took place in one of our large hospitals. You need to read the history of our Adventist involvement with the abortion business. It started in Hawaii, and spread to at least 12 documented Adventist hospitals. I posted the link to the article published by our Ministry magazine where this was reported in precise details.

“So if you have to choose between two smoldering wicks, which of the two do you choose?”

The duty of physicians is to save as many lives as they possibly can. Killing human beings is outside the role prescribed for doctors. Read the Hippocratic Oath which used to be respected by doctors for 2 thousand years.

“And taking the well-being of the rape victim is not stealing?”

When an abortion is performed, the woman is violated again—this time with metal instruments--and she is burdened with a load of guilt for the rest of her life. Abortion is not a redemptive act; while adoption is.

“It's called a ZYGOTE!”

True, and a zygote is a fetus, and a fetus is the Latin word for unborn baby.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“If a girl sees a blessing in such a pregnancy, then let her carry it to term. But how about those that do not see it that way? Or if the parents of such a girl don't see any blessing in it? What do you want to do? Compel them to go through with it?”

Under the present legal system there isn’t very much we can do. The law needs to be changed. We need to go back to what it was when abortion was illegal.

[doug yowell]

And the girl's life means nothing? Any value system that puts more value on a zygote than a developed person has got it backwards, imho.

Why backwards? If both are fully human what determines their value? Why not equal value?